Nichos Para Sistemas Fotovoltaicos

ii

La Comisión Nacional para el Uso Eficiente de la Energía (Conuee) agradece a la Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH (Cooperación Técnica Alemana) por el desarrollo del estudio presente. La colaboración de la GTZ se realizó por encargo del Ministerio Federal Alemán de Cooperación Económica y Desarollo (BMZ) y en el marco de cooperación técnica entre México y Alemania. El documento no necesariamente representa la opinión de la Conuee y/o de la GTZ. Se autoriza la reproducción parcial o total, siempre y cuando sea sin fines de lucro y se cite la fuente de referencia.

Junio 2009

Impreso en México

Imprenta: Forever Print S.A. de C.V.

Tiraje: 1000 (Edición Junio 2009)

Edición y Supervisión: André Eckermann, Sebastian Hack, Valentina Barzalobre Autor: Martin Amtmann Diseño: Conuee Fotografía: Ministerio Federal Alemán para el Medioambiente, la Conservación de Naturaleza y la Seguridad Nuclear (BMU) © Comisión Nacional para el Uso Eficiente de la Energía (Conuee) Río Lerma No. 302 Col. Cuauhtémoc, Del. Cuauhtémoc C.P. 06500, México D.F. www.conuee.gob.mx © Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH Dag-Hammerskjöld-Weg 1-5 65760 Eschborn/Alemania www.gtz.de Dirección en México: Oficina de Representación de la GTZ en México Torre Hemicor Av. Insurgentes Sur No. 826, Piso 11 Col. Del Valle Del. Benito Juárez C.P. 03100, México, D.F. www.gtz.de/mexico [email protected]

Nichos de Mercado para sistemas fotovoltaicos en conexión a la red eléctrica en México

Resumen Ejecutivo

iii

- Resumen Ejecutivo -


Resumen Ejecutivo

v

Resumen ejecutivo

Antecedentes y motivación

México cuenta con condiciones naturales muy favorables para la aplicación de sistemas fotovoltaicos. En muchas partes de su extenso territorio, la radiación solar promedio es el doble de, por ejemplo, los países de Europa como Alemania, que actualmente es uno de los mayores mercados fotovoltaicos en el mundo. El inmenso potencial de México, la segunda economía más grande de Latinoamérica, ha sido escasamente explotado hasta ahora. Actualmente, el país tiene instalada, tan solo, una capacidad de aproximadamente 19.7 MWp de sistemas fotovoltaicos, comparados con una capacidad instalada de 3,800 MWp en Alemania. Debido al incremento en los precios de la energía y a la creciente conciencia pública sobre el impacto negativo de los combustibles fósiles, el sol, como fuente potencial de energía, ha despertado cada vez mayor interés en las autoridades mexicanas. En julio de 2007 el organismo regulador del sector de gas y electricidad en México (CRE - Comisión Reguladora de Energía) aprobó una resolución que ofrece a los inversionistas la posibilidad de instalar sistemas fotovoltaicos conectados a la red nacional en pequeña escala (hasta 10 kWp para hogares y 30kWp para empresas). Esta interconexión, es regulada bajo el principio de Medición Neta de Energía (Net Metering) que permite compensar el costo de la electricidad utilizada con la energía aportada a la red nacional. Esta resolución genera oportunidades para un amplio uso de sistemas fotovoltaicos en México – más allá del uso de sistemas aislados y desconectados de la red eléctrica, que predominan actualmente. Como consecuencia, existe cada vez más, gente interesada en información respecto a la factibilidad financiera del uso de sistemas fotovoltaicos en conexión a la red eléctrica en México.

Objetivo y alcance

Dada la actualmente limitada información disponible, referente a la factibilidad financiera de los sistemas fotovoltaicos conectados a la red eléctrica en México, se plantearon como objetivos principales de este estudio:

identificar nichos de mercado para un uso financieramente viable de sistemas fotovoltaicos en el sector residencial en México, así como en los sectores industrial y de servicios, analizando si el uso de sistemas fotovoltaicos en dichos éstos sectores permiten ahorrar costos desde la perspectiva de un inversionista, comparado con la compra de toda la electricidad a la red nacional de energía,

especificar el tamaño de estos nichos de mercado en los sectores anteriormente mencionados, en términos de capacidad (en MWp) y en términos de volumen de mercado (en dólares americanos),

identificar y dimensionar el impacto de los subsidios en los nichos de mercado, dada su relevancia para el gobierno o una perspectiva macro. Este análisis está limitado al sector residencial, debido a los escasos datos disponibles en el sector industrial y de servicios.

Para el sector residencial, el estudio se limitó a 29 ciudades mexicanas que fueron identificadas por la Comisión Nacional para el Uso Eficiente de la Energía (Conuee). Para cada ciudad, se


Resumen Ejecutivo

vi

consideraron dos opciones de sistemas fotovoltaicos. La primera opción es un sistema fotovoltaico, diseñado para suministrar el total del consumo anual de energía eléctrica del hogar (opción de suministro total). En la segunda opción, el sistema está diseñado para suministrar sólo la cantidad de energía eléctrica necesaria, a fin de cambiar a una tarifa de menor precio (opción de suministro parcial).

Los sectores industrial y de servicios, se analizaron conjuntamente porque comparten las mismas tarifas. Para cada tarifa, se seleccionaron las tres regiones que representan la tarifa más baja, la intermedia y la más alta. Los sistemas fueron diseñados para suministrar el 5% del consumo total anual de energía eléctrica de una compañía.

Este estudio, se limitó al análisis de sistemas fotovoltaicos como alternativa a la compra de electricidad a la red nacional. Otras medidas y tecnologías, como el uso eficiente de la energía (por ejemplo iluminación eficiente) u otras tecnologías de energía renovable, no fueron consideradas.

Consideraciones metodológicas y escenarios

Los nichos de mercado en este estudio, están definidos como oportunidades para el uso financieramente factible de sistemas fotovoltaicos, conectados a la red eléctrica en México. Metodológicamente, los nichos de mercado fueron identificados comparando el costo de generación de un sistema fotovoltaico, con el costo de compra de la energía eléctrica a la red nacional, bajo las tarifas eléctricas en México. La comparación de costos, entre la factura mensual y el respectivo costo del sistema fotovoltaico, se realizó con los valores presentes netos, para un periodo de 20 años. Es decir, se define un nicho de mercado cuando los costos totales del consumo de electricidad a 20 años, con un sistema fotovoltaico, resulta inferior al costo de la misma cantidad de electricidad sin este sistema. Los volúmenes de consumo eléctrico, se consideraron fijos durante los 20 años, en cada sector. Los parámetros usados para el cálculo de los valores presentes netos y la comparación de costos, así como los parámetros clave del sistema fotovoltaico, se muestran en la Tabla 1.

Los costos de inversión específicos, para un sistema fotovoltaico, se calcularon diseñando sistemas fotovoltaicos particulares para niveles significativos de consumo seleccionados, multiplicando la respectiva capacidad del sistema (kWp) por precios de mercado, obtenidos específicamente para este estudio a través de una encuesta de mercado. Cabe mencionar que, los precios actuales de los módulos fotovoltaicos en el mercado en México, siguen siendo considerablemente mayores en comparación a los de Alemania o Estados Unidos. Las razones que explican esta diferencia, pueden deberse a que el mercado mexicano es aún muy pequeño y la mayoría de los módulos son importados. Debido a que, tanto la industria fotovoltaica como la Agencia Internacional de la Energía (AIE) esperan una reducción considerable en los precios de los sistemas fotovoltaicos durante los próximos años, el estudio considera tres escenarios posibles para los precios por kWp instalado.

Escenario 1 “Precios actuales” identificados en una encuesta de mercado en otoño de 2007 en México

Escenario 2 “Perspectiva conservadora” tomando en cuenta una reducción en el precio de 20%, para los próximos 5 años

Escenario 3 “Perspectiva optimista” tomando en cuenta una reducción de 50% en el precio, para los próximos 5 años


Resumen Ejecutivo

vii

El análisis del segundo y tercer escenario, calculado con las tarifas esperadas, para un periodo de 5 años. Estas tarifas, se calcularon suponiendo una tasa anual de incremento de las tarifas de electricidad, tal y como se muestra en la Tabla 1. Los volúmenes de consumo utilizados para el análisis fueron identificados en base a la estructura de los grupos tarifarios respectivos. En el sector residencial existen siete tarifas diferentes (1, 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E, 1F), cada una correspondientes a una región climática distinta (véase Tabla 2) y una tarifa adicional (Tarifa Doméstica de Alto Consumo - DAC) correspondiente a los hogares que exceden cierto límite superior de consumo. El precio respectivo por kilowatt-hora en cada tarifa, varía debido a factores como la estación, el mes y el volumen de consumo.

Las tarifas residenciales están subestructuradas por rangos de consumo. La lógica de estos rangos es que, mientras mayor consumo tenga un hogar, mayor será la tarifa que se le aplicará. En la opción de un sistema fotovoltaico, que suministra sólo cierta cantidad de la electricidad total, utilizada en el hogar (suministro parcial) el sistema fue diseñado para generar, específicamente, la cantidad necesaria de energía para que aplique una tarifa más baja. Para los sistemas que generan toda la electricidad utilizada (suministro total), los límites del rango de consumo de cada tarifa fueron seleccionados como volúmenes de consumo hipotéticos, siguiendo la premisa de que si el sistema fotovoltaico resulta ser una alternativa más barata a cierta tarifa, ésto sucederá en el punto donde la tarifa respectiva cambia de una más alta a una más baja. Por ejemplo, para la Tarifa 1, el cambio sucede para volúmenes de consumo de 140 y 250 kWh, por lo que los volúmenes de consumo 140, 249 y 250 kWh, se utilizaron para el análisis.


Resumen Ejecutivo

viii

Tabla 1: Parámetros clave y suposiciones

Fuente: Elaboración propia

La estructura de tarifas para los sectores industrial y de servicios, es diferente a la del sector residencial. La tarifa que se aplica, depende del tipo de conexión a la red nacional (baja tensión, media tensión y alta tensión), que a su vez, depende de la demanda máxima de electricidad requerida por el usuario. Además, estas tarifas varían durante el día, debido a la diferencia entre los periodos de carga base, intermedia y de punta. Por consiguiente, el análisis de este sector resulta mucho más complejo, dada la importancia de la potencia eléctrica requerida, la diferencia entre los diferentes periodos de carga y las características particulares de consumo de distintas ramas industriales y de servicios. Esta complejidad, hizo que el análisis de ésta parte del estudio, se realizara de un modo más general. Para cada tarifa, se seleccionó un consumo eléctrico bajo, medio y alto. Posteriormente, se analizó el impacto de un sistema fotovoltaico que generara el 5% de este consumo. La tabla siguiente, muestra la estructura básica de tarifas para el sector residencial y para los de industria y de servicios en México.

Escenario 1

"Precios

actuales"

Escenario 2

"Perspectiva

conser-

vadora"

Escenario 3

"Perspectiva

optimista"

Escenario 1

"Precios

actuales"

Escenario 2

"Perspectiva

conser-

vadora"

Escenario 3

"Perspectiva

optimista"

1- 50 kWp 101.000 80.800 50.500

50-100 kWp 96.500 77.200 48.250

100-300 kWp 92.200 73.760 46.100

300-500 kWp 90.200 72.160 45.100

Sector residencial Sectores industrial y de servicios

Escenarios de costos de

inversión

(impuesto incluido)

[$/kWp]

103.000 82.400 51.500

Tasa de descuento 8%

Impuesto al valor agregado 15%

Costos anuales para O&M como porcentaje

del costo de inversión para el sistema

fotovoltaico

0,80% 0,50%

Pérdida de eficiencia debida a

temperaturas mayores a los 25 °C 0.5 %/°C No se supone pérdida de eficiencia

Tasa de desempeño (Performance ratio)

Eficiencia 16%

Vida útil

0.73

Tipo Policristalino

Tasa anual de incremento de precios de las

tarifas de electricidad

20 años

8% 7%

Módulos fotovoltaicos


Resumen Ejecutivo

ix

Tabla 2: Estructura básica de tarifas para el sector residencial y el sector industrial y servicios

Sector residencial Sectores industrial y de servicios

Temperatura promedio mínima durante verano

Tarifa aplicada

Tensión Demanda máxima/ Nivel de transmisión Tarifa

aplicada

< 25°C 1 Baja

< 25 kW 2

≥ 25°C y < 28°C 1A ≥ 25 kW 3

≥ 28°C y < 30°C 1B

Media

< 100 kW O-M

30°C 1C ≥ 100 kW H-M

31°C 1D ≥ 100 kW, short-time utilisation H-MC

32°C 1E

Alta

subtransmisión H-S

≥ 33°C 1F subtransmisión, periodo de utilización largo H-SL

transmisión H-T

transmisión, periodo de utilización largo H-TL


Adicionalmente al análisis, desde la perspectiva del inversionista (perspectiva micro) y para identificar el impacto de los subsidios en los nichos de mercado y su tamaño, para el sector residencial, se realizaron para cada escenario dos anáslisis desde un punto de vista macro, considerando diferentes supuestos:

Perspectiva macro “Sin cambio de tarifa” suponiendo que no existe la posibilidad de cambiar a una tarifa más barata. Los nichos de mercado, identificados de esta forma, no cubren aquellos casos en los que el sistema fotovoltaico resulta financieramente viable, debido a un cambio de tarifa más subvencionada y, por lo tanto, más barata.

Perspectiva macro “Sin subsidios” suponiendo tarifas reflejando los costos de suministro de electricidad y libres de subsidios. Bajo esta perspectiva, se asume una sustitución de todas las tarifas existentes por la tarifa DAC, de la cual se supone que representa una tarifa eléctrica que cubre los costos respectivos. Esto, permite identificar nichos de mercado en un mundo libre de subsidios y proporciona una idea más clara de la competitividad real de los sistemas fotovoltaicos, en el sector eléctrico mexicano.

Principales resultados para el sector residencial (perspectiva micro)

Escenario 1: “Precios y nichos actuales” (103,000 $/kWp)

La electricidad generada con sistemas fotovoltaicos tiene siempre un costo mayor que la electricidad consumida de la red nacional sin este sistema: Si se aplican los precios actuales para sistemas fotovoltaicos, el estudio muestra que para un periodo de 20 años, el costo promedio por kilowatt-hora generado en un hogar con un sistema fotovoltaico, será siempre más alto que el promedio de la tarifa respectiva sin el uso de un sistema fotovoltaico en el mismo periodo.

Nichos de mercado para algunos consumidores DAC: Sin embargo, en algunos casos, la opción del suministro parcial mediante un sistema fotovoltaico, resultó ser más


Resumen Ejecutivo

x

económica que comprar toda la electricidad requerida a la red eléctrica. La razón de ésto es el cambio hacia una tarifa más baja, causado por la reducción de la electricidad consumida de la red al generar parte de la electricidad con el sistema fotovoltaico. Este efecto genera ahorros en el periodo de 20 años, sólo para los hogares que consuman en la tarifa residencial más elevada (DAC) en un número limitado de ciudades, utilizando un sistema fotovoltaico, sólo hasta cierto tamaño y en general, sólo en regiones que presentan una radiación cercana al promedio nacional o mayor. Si la parte de la energía eléctrica suministrada por el sistema fotovoltaico, supera un punto crítico, el incremento en los costos de inversión para el sistema fotovoltaico, será mayor al impacto de la caída en la tarifa, por lo que “este nicho desaparece”.

Figura 1: Derivación de los nichos indicados



Tamaño de los nichos de mercado: Sólo el 2% de los hogares mexicanos dentro de las 28 ciudades seleccionadas forma parte de los nichos descritos. Esto es equivalente a casi 90,000 hogares. El Distrito Federal (Ciudad de México) no se considera, debido a la falta de datos relativos al número de hogares y sus volúmenes de consumo. El tamaño de los nichos alcanza los 81 MW, equivalentes a aproximadamente 608 millones de dólares con los precios del Escenario 1 (véase Tabla 4). El nicho corresponde a las ciudades marcadas con una cruz en la Tabla 3.

Conclusión: Con los precios actuales, las posibilidades de un ahorro económico con la aplicación de sistemas fotovoltaicos conectados a la red eléctrica, son muy limitadas en el sector residencial mexicano.

Sistema FV para suministro eléctrico parcial

Tarifa [$/kWh]Costos de

generación [$/kWh]Tarifa [$/kWh]Costos de

generación [$/kWh]

Precio promedio = (Tarifa * Porcentaje) + (Costos de generación FV * Porcentaje)

Cuando:

Precio promedio < Tarifa original* Nicho

También cuando:

Costos de generación FV > Tarifa original*

* tarifa original = tarifa antes del cambio de tarifa por suministro parcial con FV


Resumen Ejecutivo

xi

Tabla 3: Nichos de mercado por ciudad


Escenario 2 “Perspectiva conservadora” (82,400 $/kWp)

Los costos de generación fotovoltaica, para altos volúmenes de consumo, son menores que el costo de la tarifa sin el sistema fotovoltaico. El segundo escenario muestra que, para casi todos los hogares que pagan la tarifa DAC, cualquiera de las opciones con sistema fotovoltaico son más económicas, ya sea de suministro parcial o total. Esto quiere decir que los sistemas también ahorran costos si se suministra el total de la energía eléctrica requerida por un hogar. Además, esto muestra que en estos casos, el costo promedio de generación por kilowatt-hora con el sistema fotovoltaico en el periodo de 20 años es menor que el costo promedio que se tendría que pagar con tarifa DAC si no se contara con un sistema fotovoltaico.

DAC

menor

a DAC DAC

menor

a DAC DAC

menor

a DAC

Durango X X X X X

Oaxaca X X X X X

Guadalajara X X X X X

Puebla X X X X X

D..F X X X X X

Cuautla X X X X

Tepic X X X X X

Nogales X X X X X

Los Tuxtlas X X X X X

Chihuahua X X X X X

Acapulco X X X X X

Poza Rica X X X X X

Riviera Maya X X X X X

Juárez X X X

Monterrey X X X

Tampico X X X

Mérida X X X X

Mazatlán X X X

La Paz X X X X X

Matamoros X X X X X

Cd. Altamirano X X X X X

Culiacán X X X

Guaymas X X X X X

Reynosa X X X

Piedras Negras X X X

Mexicali X X

San Luis Rio Colorado X X

Cd. Obregón X X

Hermosillo X X

1C

Tarifa CiudadEscenario 2 Escenario 3

1D

1E

1F

Escenario 1

1

1A

1B


Resumen Ejecutivo

xii

Los nichos de mercado no están limitados a consumidores DAC: En el rango de consumo de DAC, los sistemas fotovoltaicos permiten ahorrar en cualquier tarifa a excepción de la 1F. Incluso, es posible obtener ahorros económicos en cualquier tarifa, a excepción de la 1C y la 1F, en el rango de consumo inferior más próximo a DAC en las ciudades con una radiación solar mayor a 5 kWh/m2/d, debido al efecto de caída de la tarifa alta a una más baja como se explicó anteriormente. El rango de consumo inferior más próximo a DAC no es económico para la Tarifa 1C porque no existe una ciudad con las características de radiación requerida en esa región (mayor a 5 kWh/m2/d) y, en el caso de la Tarifa 1F porque no se aplica la Tarifa DAC durante el verano.

Tamaño de los nichos de mercado: Los nichos descritos incluirían al 17% de los hogares mexicanos de las 28 ciudades incluidas, equivalente a casi un millón de hogares. El tamaño de este nicho de mercado alcanza los 693 MW, equivalente a aproximadamente 5,190 millones de dólares con los precios del Escenario 2 (véase Tabla 4). En cada una de las ciudades analizadas existe algún nicho de mercado (véase Tabla 3).

Conclusión: Este escenario muestra que es muy probable que los consumidores cercanos a los límites de la Tarifa DAC (superiores o inferiores a ésta) disfrutarán, en aproximadamente 5 años, de costos de generación por kilowatt-hora con sistemas fotovoltaicos menores al precio por kilowatt-hora, sin dichos sistemas. Ésto genera importantes oportunidades de mercado y de ahorro económico, relacionadas con los sistemas fotovoltaicos conectados a la red eléctrica en México, para diversos niveles de consumo.

Escenario 3 “Perspectiva optimista” (51,500 $/kWp)

Ahorro con sistemas fotovoltaicos en la mayoría de los casos: Para este escenario, existe un gran potencial de ahorros mediante el uso de sistemas fotovoltaicos para todas las tarifas residenciales. En todas las regiones consideradas, es posible tener aplicaciones económicamente favorables en los rangos inferiores más cercanos a la tarifa DAC.

Grandes nichos de mercado para usuarios con mediano y alto consumo: Para todas las ciudades consideradas en el estudio, existe la posibilidad de ahorrar costos en los rangos inferiores más cercanos a la Tarifa DAC, tanto con suministro parcial como con suministro total por un sistema fotovoltaico. En todas las tarifas, a excepción de la 1F, los costos de generación con el sistema fotovoltaico son aún más bajos que la tarifa promedio que se tendría que pagar en el rango de consumo inferior más próximo a la Tarifa DAC sin el sistema fotovoltaico. Sólo en el rango inferior de consumo, el costo de generación utilizando el sistema fotovoltaico, es aún mayor que la tarifa eléctrica.

Tamaño de los nichos de mercado: Los nichos de mercado descritos, aplican para 27% de los hogares de las 28 ciudades incluidas en el estudio, equivalentes a cerca de 1.5 millones de hogares. El tamaño de este nicho es de 1,336 MW, equivalente a 6,225 millones de dólares, aproximadamente, con los precios del Escenario 3 (véase Tabla 4). En cada una de las ciudades analizadas existe un nicho de mercado (véase Tabla 3).

Conclusión: Este escenario muestra claramente que, si los precios se reducen a la mitad, los sistemas fotovoltaicos se convertirían en una alternativa económica en México para cualquier volumen de consumo que exceda el rango de consumo mínimo. Esto representaría un mercado fotovoltaico promisorio para atraer una gran inversión privada.


Resumen Ejecutivo

xiii

La Tabla 4 da una visión general del tamaño de los nichos de mercado para los tres escenarios.

Tabla 4: Tamaño de los nichos en el sector residencial (perspectiva micro)


Principales resultados para el sector residencial (perspectiva macro)

Perspectiva Macro “Sin cambio de tarifa”

Para el Escenario 1 no existen nichos de mercado.

Para el Escenario 2 y 3 existen nichos de mercado significativos, a pesar del supuesto desfavorable.

Perspectiva Macro “Sin subsidios”

Para el Escenario 1 no existen nichos de mercado.

Para el Escenario 2 y 3 existen enormes nichos de mercado. Comparando los nichos

Escenario

Capacidad

potencial

[MW]

Hogares

[#]

Tamaño del

nicho

[mill. USD]

Rango de

tamaño del

sistemas FV

[kW]

1 Guadalajara 28 45,981 207

2 Chihuahua 9 14,941 67

3 Puebla 7 10,993 49

4 Poza Rica 6 9,994 45

5 Acapulco 5 7,713 35

54 89,622 403

Total 28 Ciudades 81 133,499 608

2%

1 Guadalajara 174 388,224 1,302 0.1 - 1.3

2 Cuautla 52 73,297 392 0.6 - 1.9

3 Chihuahua 50 60,298 376 0.1 - 2.9

4 Nogales 44 47,799 332 0.6 - 1.9

5 Puebla 41 89,854 306 0.1 - 1.3

362 659,471 2,708

Total 28 Ciudades 693 956,629 5,190

17%

1 Guadalajara 174 388,224 814 0.1 - 1.3

2 Mexicali 141 44,606 659 0.2 - 15.5

3 Monterrey 124 110,034 581 0.1 - 3.7

4 Cd. Juarez 88 86,143 413 0.1 - 3.7

5 Tampico 66 55,366 307 0.1 - 3.7

593 684,372 2,774

Total 28 Ciudades 1,336 1,486,362 6,255

27%

3

"Perspectiva

optimista"Total "Top 5"

"Top 5"

1

"Nichos

actuales"Total "Top 5"

2

"Perspectiva

conservadora"Total "Top 5"


Resumen Ejecutivo

xiv

encontrados en el análisis del sector residencial desde la perspectiva micro, el nicho en MW/h en la perspectiva macro “sin subsidios” es 560% mayor en el Escenario 2, y 450% en el Escenario 3.

Conclusión

Los subsidios causan distorsiones de mercado significativas, lo cual representa una desventaja para la aplicación de los sistemas fotovoltaicos.

Los sistemas fotovoltaicos ofrecen un gran potencial para el gobierno mexicano, para reducir los subsidios, por un lado, y suministrar energía económica y limpia a gran parte de la población, por el otro.

La Tabla 5 muestra el tamaño total de los nichos de mercado para los escenarios de las perspectivas macro “Sin cambio de tarifa” y “Sin subsidios”.

Tabla 5: Tamaño total de los nichos de mercado de la perspectiva macro


Principales resultados para los sectores industrial y de servicios

Los siguientes resultados, se refieren a nichos de mercado para compañías que compran su energía eléctrica en alguna de las “tarifas generales” (Tarifa 2, 3, O-M, H-M, H-MC, H-S, H-SL, H-T, H-TL). Como se mencionó anteriormente, el análisis compara una situación en la que no se cuenta con un sistema fotovoltaico con una en la que se invierte en un sistema fotovoltaico, que suministra el 5% de la electricidad demandada por la compañía.

Perspectiva Macro "Sin cambio de tarifa"

Capacidad

potencialHogares

Tamaño

del Nicho

[MW] [#] [mill. USD]

1

"Nichos actuales"

2

"Perspectiva conservadora"516 224,462 3,867

3

"Perspectiva optimista"1,812 824,533 8,482

Perspectiva macro "Sin subsidios"

1

"Nichos actuales"

2

"Perspectiva conservadora"4,580 5,607,111 34,308

3

"Perspectiva optimista"7,328 5,607,111 34,308

Escenario

sin nichos

sin nichos


Resumen Ejecutivo

xv

Escenario 1 “Precios actuales”

La electricidad generada con un sistema fotovoltaico, es siempre más cara que la electricidad adquirida de la red eléctrica sin el sistema fotovoltaico: Para los sectores industrial y de servicios, el análisis no encontró ningún caso en el que un sistema fotovoltaico ayude a reducir costos con los precios del Escenario 1. Es decir, actualmente, no existe ningún nicho para la generación económicamente viable del 5% de la electricidad consumida, a través de sistemas fotovoltaicos en los sectores industrial y de servicios.

Escenario 2 “Perspectiva conservadora”

Nichos para aplicaciones fotovoltaicas en las Tarifas 2 y 3: El Escenario 2 muestra los primeros nichos para aplicaciones económicas de los sistemas fotovoltaicos en los sectores industrial y de servicios en México. Estos nichos existen en todas las regiones de la Tarifa 2, e incluso para regiones de Tarifa 3, que presentan alta radiación solar, de alrededor de 6 kWh/m2/d.

Tamaño de los nichos de mercado: Aunque a primera vista puede parecer que este nicho es muy pequeño, es necesario notar que la Tarifa 2 incluye cerca del 93% de todos los usuarios de las “Tarifas generales”. En total, este nicho incluye aproximadamente 2.5 millones de empresas (véase Tabla 6). Debido a limitaciones de datos no fue factible cuantificar los nichos en MW y volúmenes de mercado en términos financieros.

Conclusión: Dado que las reducciones en los precios consideradas en este escenario son relativamente conservadoras, se puede esperar que para la mayoría de las empresas mexicanas, los sistemas fotovoltaicos se conviertan en una opción interesante en los próximos años.

Escenario 3 “Perspectiva optimista”

Nichos para sistemas fotovoltaicos en las tarifas 2, 3, O-M y H-MC: El Escenario 3 muestra nichos en las Tarifas 2 y 3 para una radiación solar promedio de 4, 5 y 6 kWh/m2/d (que prácticamente cubre todo el territorio mexicano habitado). Para las tarifas O-M y H-MC los sistemas fotovoltaicos sólo resultan económicos con radiaciones solares entre 5 y 6 kWh/m2/d.

Tamaño de los nichos de mercado: Las aplicaciones de sistemas fotovoltaicos, serían relevantes para alrededor del 98% de todos los usuarios dentro de las “Tarifas generales”, equivalente a 2.7 millones de empresas aproximadamente (véase Tabla 6).

Conclusión: Si los precios de mercado para los sistemas fotovoltaicos se reducen, como se prevé en este escenario, las aplicaciones fotovoltaicas atraerían, posiblemente, grandes inversiones por parte del sector industrial y de servicios.

La siguiente tabla muestra una vista general del tamaño de los nichos de mercado para los tres escenarios.


Resumen Ejecutivo

xvi

Tabla 6: Tamaño de los nichos en los sectores industrial y de servicios (perspectiva micro)


Conclusiones y perspectivas

El estudio muestra que, a pesar de las excelentes condiciones para el uso de sistemas fotovoltaicos en México, a los precios actuales casi no existen oportunidades económicamente viables para el uso de éstos, ni en el sector residencial ni en los sectores industrial y de servicios. Los subsidios, actualmente otorgados a los hogares, son una barrera para el desarrollo del mercado fotovoltaico en México; sobre todo, si tomamos en cuenta que aquellas regiones con las mejores condiciones para el uso de sistemas fotovoltaicos – las regiones con la mayor radiación solar en el país – también reciben, gracias a políticas sociales los mayores subsidios. Esto, hace aún más difícil que los sistemas fotovoltaicos, sean competitivos comparados con los precios de la electricidad, dado que estos se mantienen artificialmente bajos. Cualquier recorte a estos subsidios, aumentaría directamente los nichos de mercado para los sistemas fotovoltaicos en México. Sin embargo, aún con los subsidios, parece muy probable que los sistemas fotovoltaicos, se convertirán en una alternativa económicamente viable para los hogares de la clase media y alta y de la mayoría de las empresas en México, en un futuro cercano.

A pesar, de que es bueno saber que los sistemas fotovoltaicos podrán competir con las tarifas eléctricas en un futuro cercano, sin importar los altos niveles de subsidio, una opción mucho más atractiva sería, definitivamente, combinar un crecimiento en el mercado fotovoltaico con un decremento en el nivel de subsidios – no sólo para el gobierno, sino para el pueblo mexicano en general. La experiencia internacional con energías renovables, muestra que los esquemas de fomento juegan un papel predominante para dar forma a estos mercados por varias razones, como son los altos costos inciales de inversión, falta de conciencia entre los potenciales inversionistas, etc. A diferencia de muchos otros mercados, podría ser más viable establecer esquemas de fomento en México, pues se podría definir un mecanismo de fomento basado en la lógica de reacomodar recursos financieros que actualmente ya están destinados al gasto público. Esta reasignación, se llevaría a cabo mediante una redirección de recursos financieros destinados a subsidiar las tarifas eléctricas para una utilización, al menos parcial, de estos recursos para estimular el mercado fotovoltaico. Un paso lógico en esta dirección, sería realizar un análisis detallado de los posibles esquemas de fomento que permitirían la creación de una situación ganar-ganar. Mientras tanto y para facilitar la toma de decisión de inversión, la hoja de cálculo desarrollada para el estudio, también es una herramienta que permite a las personas interesadas descubrir, en algunos minutos, y tomando en cuenta su situación particular, si sería conveniente, económicamente hablando, realizar una inversión en un sistema fotovoltaico conectado a la red eléctrica. Para mayor información la “Calculadora fotovoltaica” está disponible en: www.conuee.gob.mx.

Escenario 1 Escenario 2 Escenario 3

Empresas potenciales

[#]0 2,557,478 2,716,943

Porcentaje del total de

empresas [%]0 93 98


Presentación de Resultados Clave

xvii

- Presentación de Resultados Clave -



xviii

Comisión Nacional para el Uso Eficiente de la Energía2

La Comisión Nacional para el Uso Eficiente de la Energía (Conuee)

agradece a la Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit

(GTZ) GmbH (Cooperación Técnica Alemana) por el desarrollo del

estudio presente. La colaboración de la GTZ se realiza por encargo del

Ministerio Federal Alemán de Cooperación Económica y Desarollo

(BMZ) y en el marco de la cooperación técnica entre México y

Alemania.

El documento no necesariamente representa la opinión de la Conuee

y/o de la GTZ. Se autoriza la reproducción parcial o total, siempre y

cuando sea sin fines de lucro y se cite la fuente de referencia.

Nichos de mercado para

sistemas fotovoltaicos en conexión a

la red eléctrica en México



xix


AntecedentesAntecedentes1

2. Sector doméstico

3. Sectores industrial y servicios

4. Conclusiones


Antecedentes

Socios – Conuee

La Comisión Nacional para el Uso Eficiente de la Energía (CONUEE)

es un órgano administrativo desconcentrado de la Secretaría de

Energía, que cuenta con autonomía técnica y operativa. Tiene por

objeto promover la eficiencia energética y constituirse como órgano

de carácter técnico, en materia de aprovechamiento sustentable de la

energía. La CONUEE queda constituida a partir de la entrada en

vigor de la Ley para el Aprovechamiento Sustentable de la Energía,

publicada el 28 de noviembre de 2008, en donde se establece que

todos los recursos humanos y materiales de la Comisión Nacional

para el Ahorro de Energía (CONAE) se entenderán asignados a esta

nueva Comisión.



xx


Antecedentes

Socios – GTZ (Cooperación Técnica Alemana)

Empresa estatal del gobierno alemán para la implementación de la

Cooperación Técnica; principal comitente es el Ministerio Federal

Alemán de Cooperación Económica y Desarrollo (BMZ)

Objetivo: contribuir al desarrollo político, económico, ecológico y

social, para mejorar así las condiciones

de vida y las perspectivas de la población

Cooperación con México en el sector energía

desde 2005

contrapartes principales: SENER, Conae, CRE, CFE

áreas: marco regulatorio y normativo, programas de

promoción, capacitación y desarrollo organizacional

tecnologías: calentadores solares de agua, bio-

combustibles, sistemas fotovoltaicos, energía eólica



xxi


Antecedentes

Objetivos del estudio

Identificar nichos de mercado, económicamente viables, de

sistemas fotovoltaicos (FV) en conexión a la red eléctrica en México,

para los siguientes sectores (análisis micro):

- sector doméstico

- sector industrial y servicios

Determinar el mercado potencial para los nichos identificados

- en términos de capacidad (MWp)

- en términos financieros (USD)

Identificar el impacto de subsidios en los nichos de mercado y en

su tamaño para el sector doméstico (análisis macro)

Ofrecer herramientas amigables de estimación de rentabilidad para

usuario final, fabricantes, instaladores, público general, etc.


Antecedentes

Aspectos metodológicos

Metodología

Comparación económica entre tarifas eléctricas y costos de

generación con sistemas FV en base a valores presentes neto (VPN)

Análisis micro-económico: nichos desde la perspectiva del usuario

final (tarifa = precio a usuario final, incluyendo subsidios)

Análisis macro-económico: nichos desde la perspectiva del gobierno

federal (costo total de generación = tarifa + subsidios)

Especificaciones de sistemas analizados

Módulos polycristalines

Eficiencia: 16%

Tiempo de vida: 20 años

Performance ratio: 0.73%



xxii


Sistema FV para suministro eléctrico parcial

Antecedentes

Derivación de los nichos

Tarifa [$/kWh]Costos de

generación [$/kWh]

Precio promedio = (Tarifa * Porcentaje) + (Costos de generación FV * Porcentaje)

Cuando:

Precio promedio < Tarifa original* Nicho

También cuando:

Costos de generación FV > Tarifa original*

* tarifa original = tarifa antes del cambio de tarifa por suministro parcial con FV


Sector domésticoSector doméstico2


4. Conclusiones

1. Antecedentes



xxiii


Sector doméstico

Supuestos clave y escenarios

Escenario 1

"Precios

actuales"

Escenario 2

"Perspectiva

conservadora"

Escenario 3

"Perspectiva

optimista"

Costos de inversión

(IVA incluido) [$/kWp]103,000 82,400 51,500

* precios en $ Pesos M.N.

Supuestos clave Tasa de descuento 8%

IVA 15%

O&M (anual) 0.8%

Aumento anual de tarifas eléctricas 8%

Factor de pérdida de eficiencia para temperaturas > 25ºC

Escenarios analizados* Análisis de 29 ciudades seleccionadas para las 7 tarifas eléctricas y

la tarifa DAC (servicio doméstico de alto consumo)


1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50

Radiación [kWh/m2d]

Co

sto

s d

e g

en

era

ció

n c

on

sis

tem

a F

V [

$/k

Wh

]

Escenario 1 Escenario 2 Escenario 3

VPN de costos de generación del sistema FV [$/kWh]

Sector doméstico

Resultados clave (análisis micro)

costos de generación de sistemas fotovoltaicos relativamente bajos

tarifas más bajas en regiones con mejor radiación

11

Hermosillo

La estructura de las tarifas contrasta la utilización de los

sistemas fotovoltaicos

Monterrey



xxiv


Sector doméstico


Nichos futuros (Escenarios 2 y 3 “Perspectivas futuras”)

Por radiaciones altas VPN de costos de generación de sistemas FV < VPN de tarifas

Posible ahorro por cambio de tarifa o “rentabilidad verdadera”

Nichos:

Ventana de oportunidad bastante significativa

Nichos actuales (Escenario 1 “Precios actuales de sistemas FV”)

VPN de costos de generación de sistemas FV > VPN de tarifas

Posible ahorro para consumidores DAC en regiones con alta

radiación por cambio de tarifa (por una reducción de la demanda de

la red para consumidores DAC, por autogeneración con FV)

Ventana de oportunidad relativamente pequeña

Tarifa 1 – 1E

Escenario 2 Escenario 3

Todas las tarifas


Escenario

Capacidad

potencial

[MW]

Hogares

[#]

Tamaño del

nicho

[mill. USD]

Tamaño del

sistema FV

[kW]

1 Guadalajara 174 388.224 1.302 0.1 - 1.3

2 Cuautla 52 73.297 392 0.6 - 1.9

3 Chihuahua 50 60.298 376 0.1 - 2.9

4 Nogales 44 47.799 332 0.6 - 1.9

5 Puebla 41 89.854 306 0.1 - 1.3

362 659.471 2.708

Total 28 ciudades 693 956.629 5.190

17%

1 Guadalajara 174 388.224 814 0.1 - 1.3

2 Mexicali 141 44.606 659 0.2 - 15.5

3 Monterrey 124 110.034 581 0.1 - 3.7

4 Juarez 88 86.143 413 0.1 - 3.7

5 Tampico 66 55.366 307 0.1 - 3.7

593 684.372 2.774

Total 28 ciudades 1.336 1.486.362 6.255

27%

Escenario 3

"Perspectiva

optimista"Total "Top 5"

"Top 5"

Escenario 2

"Perspectiva

conservadora"Total "Top 5"

Sector doméstico


Nichos atractivos a mediano plazo

* sin Distrito Federal



xxv


Perspectiva Macro "Sin cambio de tarifa"

Capacidad

potencialHogares

Tamaño del

Nicho

[MW] [#] [mill. USD]

Escenario 1

Escenario 2 516 224.462 3.867

Escenario 3 1.812 824.533 8.482

Perspectiva macro "Sin subsidios"

Escenario 1

Escenario 2 4.580 5.607.111 34.308

Escenario 3 7.328 5.607.111 34.308

Escenario

sin nichos

sin nichos

Sector doméstico

Resultados clave (análisis macro)

Impacto de los subsidios en los nichos de mercado

Perspectivas macro:

“Sin cambio de tarifas”Se asume que no existe

el efecto de subsidio

resultante de un cambio

a una tarifa más barata.

“Sin subsidios”Se asume un sistema

tarifario completamente

sin subsidios.

Perspectiva micro:

Tarifas vigentes


Sector industrial y serviciosSectores industrial y servicios34. Conclusiones

1. Antecedentes




xxvi


Sectores industrial y servicios

Supuestos clave y escenarios

Escenario 1

"Precios

actuales"

Ecenario 2

"Perspectiva

conservadora"

Scenario 3

"Perspectiva

optimista"

Costos de

inversión

(IVA incluido)

[$/kWp]

1- 50 kWp 101,000 80,800 50,500

50-100 kWp 96,500 77,200 48,250

100-300 kWp 92,200 73,760 46,100

300-500 kWp 90,200 72,160 45,100

* precios en $ Pesos M.N.

Supuestos clave Tasa de desuento 8%

IVA 15%

O&M (anual) 0.5%

Aumento anual de tarifas eléctricas 7%

Escenarios analizados* Fracción/ contribución solar de 5% del consumo anual de electricidad


Sectores industrial y servicios

Resultados clave

Nichos futuros (Escenarios 2 y 3 “Precios futuros de sistemas FV”)

Por radiaciones solares altas:VPN de costos de generación de sistemas FV < VPN de tarifas

Posible ahorro por “rentabilidad verdadera”

Nichos:

Nichos muy atractivosa mediano plazo

Nichos actuales (Escenario 1 “Precios actuales de sistemas FV”)

VPN de costos de generación de sistemas FV > VPN de tarifas

Actualmente no existen nichos para uso economicamente viable

Tarifa 2 y 3


Todas las tarifas


Empresas potenciales

[#]2.557.478 2.716.943

Porcentage del total de

empresas [%]93 98



xxvii


ConclusionesConclusión41. Antecedentes




Conclusiones

Perspectivas prometedoras

Actualmente

Pocas posibilidades de la utilización económica de sistemas FV en

conexión a la red eléctrica en México por

Estructura de las tarifas y subsidios

Costos elevados de sistemas FV

Falta de mecanismos de fomento para hogares

Opción: desviación de subsidios (situación win-win)

Perspectiva

En 3 a 5 años, aproximadamente, es probable quelos sistemas FV se vuelvan rentables en variasregiones del país, por la disminución de precios de estos sistemas, dando como resultado nichos y volúmenes de mercado más atractivos.



xxviii


Conclusiones

Herramientas útiles de promoción

Una forma fácil e interactiva de identificarpara su caso particular sila compra de un sistemaFV sería rentable!

Baje el estudio completo y

encuentre su propio nicho!

Comisión Nacional para el Uso Eficiente de la Energía

www.conuee.gob.mx

Cooperación Técnica Alemana

www.gtz.de/mexico


¡Gracias por

su atención!

Market Niches for Grid-connected Photovoltaic Systems in Mexico

Estudio Completo

xxix

- Estudio Completo -


Table of Contents

xxx

Table of Contents

Resumen ejecutivo v

Executive Summary 1

1 Introduction 13

1.1 Background and Motivation 13

1.2 Objective and scope 14

1.3 Methodology and data collection 15

1.4 Structure 15

2 The Mexican market for photovoltaic systems 17

2.1 Technical potential in Mexico 17

2.2 Market overview 17

2.3 Regulatory framework 19

3 Mexican electricity tariffs 21

3.1 Determining factors for electricity consumption in Mexico 21

3.1.1 Residential sector 21

3.1.2 Industry and services sectors 22

3.2 Overview of residential tariffs 24

3.3 Overview of tariffs for industry and services sectors 29

4 Photovoltaic systems subject to analysis 33

4.1 Photovoltaic Systems for the residential sector 34

4.1.1 Performance ratio and efficiency loss factor 34

4.1.2 Cities considered 36

4.1.3 Socio-economic parameters 36

4.1.4 Sizing of photovoltaic systems for full electricity supply 38

4.1.5 Sizing of photovoltaic systems for partial electricity supply 39

4.2 Photovoltaic systems for industry and services sectors 41

4.2.1 Performance ratio 41

4.2.2 Regions considered 41

4.2.3 Socio-economic parameters 42

4.2.4 Sizing 43


Table of Contents

xxxi

5 Cost calculation 45

5.1 Tariff costs 45

5.2 Financial parameters and assumptions 46

5.3 Scenarios 47

5.4 Photovoltaic system costs 48

5.4.1 Residential sector - Photovoltaic systems for full electricity supply 49

5.4.2 Residential sector - Photovoltaic systems for partial electricity supply 51

5.4.3 Industry and services sector 52

6 Identification and description of market niches via cost comparison 55

6.1 Residential Sector 56

6.1.1 Scenario 1: Current niches 56

6.1.2 Scenario 2: Conservative outlook 66

6.1.3 Scenario 3: Optimistic outlook 73

6.1.4 Analysis of the scenarios from a macro-perspective 79

6.1.4.1 Determination of market niches from a macro-perspective 81

6.1.4.2 Market niches from a macro perspective 87

6.1.5 Conclusions 90

6.2 Industry and services sectors 90

6.2.1 Scenario 1: Current niches 90

6.2.2 Scenario 2: Conservative outlook 90

6.2.3 Scenario 3: Optimistic outlook 92

6.2.4 Conclusions 97

7 Methodological reflections and conclusions 99

7.1 Sensitivity analysis 99

7.1.1 Influence of a variation of the solar radiation 99

7.1.2 Influence of a variation of the discount rate 100

7.1.2.1 Residential sector 100

7.1.2.2 Industry and services sectors 100

7.2 Limitations of the study 101

7.3 Closing remarks and outlook 102

Annex 105

Bibliography 187


List of Tables

xxxii

List of Tables

Tabla 1: Parámetros clave y suposiciones viii

Tabla 2: Estructura básica de tarifas para el sector residencial y el sector industrial y servicios ix

Tabla 3: Nichos de mercado por ciudad xi

Tabla 4: Tamaño de los nichos en el sector residencial (perspectiva micro) xiii

Tabla 5: Tamaño total de los nichos de mercado de la perspectiva macro xiv

Tabla 6: Tamaño de los nichos en los sectores industrial y de servicios (perspectiva micro) xvi

Table 7: Key parameters and assumptions 3

Table 8: Basic structure of tariffs for residential as well as industry and services 4

Table 9: Market niches by city in the residential sector (micro-approach) 6

Table 10: Size of niches in the residential sector (micro-approach) 8

Table 11: Total size of market niches from a macro-perspective 9

Table 12: Size of niches in the industry and services sectors (micro-approach) 11

Table 13: Overview of residential tariff groups (2007) 24

Table 14 : Invoice amounts for a consumption of 140 kWh (June 2007) 26

Table 15: DAC limits and tariffs in exemplary cities and regions (residential sector) 28

Table 16: Average monthly consumption data of equipments of a four-person household 29

Table 17: Tariffs for industry and services sector 29

Table 18: Allocation of intervals for Tariff H-M (2007) 30

Table 19: FRI and FRB values for Tariff H-M 31

Table 20: High temperature efficiency loss values 35

Table 21: Resulting performance ratios 35

Table 22: Assumed consumption levels of model households 37

Table 23: Additional consumption volumes for the analysis of systems for partial supply 39

Table 24: Tariffs and studied regions 41

Table 25: Considered capacity demand and consumption levels 42

Table 26: Division of overall kWh consumption 43

Table 27: Example: tariff net present value costs 46

Table 28: Financial parameters for the residential sector 46

Table 29: Financial parameters for the industry and services sectors 47

Table 30: Scenario prices for the residential sector 47

Table 31: Scenario prices for the industry and services sectors 48


List of Tables

xxxiii

Table 32: PV Generation cost calculation for residential sector (Full Supply) 49

Table 33: Cost calculation for industry and services sectors 53

Table 34: Applied FRI values 54

Table 35: Scenario 1 - Cost comparison residential sector 57

Table 36: Market niches by city in the residential sector (micro-approach) 64




Table 40: Core assumptions of micro- and macro-approaches 80

Table 41: Core differences between macro and micro-approaches in the determination of market niche sizes 82

Table 42: Example of data obtained from CFE 83

Table 43: Example Step 1 a): Calculation of average tariffs for consumption ranges in Scenario 1 in summer season 84

Table 44: Example Step 1 b): Calculation of average tariffs for consumption volumes/Scenario 1 84

Table 45: Example Step 3 a) Calculation of average consumption volume for users in a niche in a certain consumption group 86

Table 46: Example Step 3 a) Calculation of average consumption volume for users in a niche in a certain consumption group 86

Table 47: Example Step 3 c) Calculation of total capacity resulting financially feasible for consumption group 87

Table 48: Summary of results for the macro-approach “No tariff change” 88

Table 49: Summary of results for the macro-approach “No subsidies” 89

Table 50: Scenario 2 - Cost-saving PV applications in industry and services sectors 91

Table 51: Scenario 3 - Cost comparison industry and services sectors 93


Table 53: Size of niches in the industry and services sectors (micro-approach) 103


List of Figures

xxxiv

List of Figures

Figura 1: Derivación de los nichos indicados x

Figure 2: Derivation of marked niches 5

Figure 3: Determining factors for residential electricity consumption in Mexico 21

Figure 4: Examples for demand courses in the industry sector 23

Figure 5: Examples for demand courses in the service sector 23

Figure 6: Residential tariff structure 25

Figure 7: Residential tariff substructure (Tariff 1A, January 2007) 26

Figure 8: Components of a grid-connected photovoltaic system 33

Figure 9: Scenario 1 - PV Generation costs residential sector 61



Figure 12: Example Step 3 a) Calculation of average consumption volume for users in a niche in a certain consumption group 85


List of Acronyms

xxxv

List of Acronyms

a Year

CFE Federal Commission for Electricity

Conuee National Commission for the Efficient Use of Energy

CRE Commission for Energy Regulation

d Day

DAC Residential Electricity Tariff for High Consumption

D.F. Federal District

DF Charged Capacity Demand (demanda facturada)

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GTZ German Technical Cooperation

IEA International Energy Agency

IIE Electrical Research Institute

kWh Kilowatt-hour

LyFC Electricity and Power of the Centre

m2 Square meter

NAFTA North American Free Trade Agreement

O&M Operation and Maintenance

PV Photovoltaic

PVPS Photovoltaic Power Systems Programm

SENER Federal Ministry for Energy

SMN National Meteorological Service

W Watt

Wp Watt peak

VAT Value Added tax

$ Mexican peso


Executive Summary

1

Executive Summary Background and motivation

Mexico features excellent natural conditions for the application of photovoltaic systems. In many parts of its vast territory the average solar radiation is about twice as high as, for example, in sun poor Germany which is currently one of the largest photovoltaic markets in the world. The huge potential of Mexico, Latin America’s second biggest economy, has hardly been tapped so far. Up to now the country has only installed about 19.7 MWp of photovoltaic systems, compared to 3,800 MWp in Germany. Due to rising energy prices and the growing public awareness of the negative impacts of fossil fuels the sun as a potential energy source is more and more arousing the interest of Mexican authorities. In July 2007 a resolution was passed by the regulatory body for the Mexican electricity and gas sector (CRE) giving investors the possibility to set up small scale grid-connected photovoltaic systems (up to 10 kWp for households and up to 30kWp for companies). This interconnection is regulated on the principle of Net Energy Metering that allows to offset the cost of the electricity use with the energy fed into the grid. This resolution opens up opportunities for a wider use of photovoltaic systems in Mexico – beyond the currently prevailing application as isolated systems. As a consequence more and more people are interested in information regarding the financial feasibility of the grid-connected use of photovoltaic systems in Mexico.

Objective and scope

With regard to the quite limited information available at present concerning the financial feasibility of grid-connected photovoltaic systems in Mexico the core objectives of this study are to:

identify market niches for a financially viable use of photovoltaic systems in the Mexican residential sector as well as in the industry and services sectors by analysing if the use of photovoltaic systems in these sectors can save costs from an investor’s perspective compared to purchasing the entire electricity from the national grid,

specify the size of these market niches in the aforementioned sectors in terms of capacity (in MWp) and in terms of market volume (in USD),

identify the impact of subsidies on market niches and their size, since this aspect is of relevance from a government’s or macro-perspective. This analysis is limited to the residential sector due to a lack of data for the industry and services sectors.

Concerning the residential sector the study was limited to 29 Mexican cities which were identified by Conuee. For each city two photovoltaic options were regarded. The first option is a photovoltaic system designed to supply the total annual electricity consumption of the household (full supply option). In the second option the system is designed to provide only the share of electricity needed to make a lower tariff apply (partial supply option).

The industry and services sectors were analysed jointly since the same tariffs apply for them. For each tariff those three regions featuring the lowest, medium and highest tariff were selected for the analysis. The systems were designed to supply 5% of the total annual electricity consumption of a company.


Executive Summary

2

The study in hand was limited to the analysis of PV systems as an alternative to the purchase from electricity from the grid. Other measures and technologies like energy efficiency measures (e.g. energy efficient lighting) or other renewable energy technologies were not considered.

Methodological considerations and scenarios

Market niches in this study are defined as opportunities for a financially feasible use of grid-connected photovoltaic systems in Mexico. Methodologically, market niches were identified by comparing the generation costs of a photovoltaic system to the costs of purchasing electricity from the national grid under the current Mexican electricity tariffs. The cost comparison between monthly invoices and the respective costs for the photovoltaic systems was performed on the basis of net present values for a 20 years period. In other words, this study defines a market niche as a situation in which the total costs of electricity consumption over 20 years with a PV system result inferior to the costs for the same amount of electricity without a PV system. In this context, the electricity consumption volumes were assumed to be fix over the regarded 20 years period for all sectors. The parameters used for the calculation of net present values and the cost comparison together with the key parameters of the photovoltaic system are shown in Table 7.

The specific investment costs of a photovoltaic system were calculated by designing particular photovoltaic systems for selected significant consumption levels multiplying the respective determined system capacity (kWp) with market prices which were taken from a market survey. With respect to current photovoltaic module prices it can be said that market prices in Mexico are still significantly higher compared to Germany and the United States. Reasons for this difference might be that the Mexican market is still very small and that most modules are imported. As the photovoltaic industry and the International Energy Agency both expect considerable price declines for photovoltaic systems in the next years the study includes a total of three scenarios regarding the prices per kWp installed.

Scenario 1 “Current prices” as identified in a market survey in autumn 2007 in Mexico

Scenario 2 “Conservative outlook” assuming a price reduction of 20% within 5 years

Scenario 3 “Optimistic outlook” assuming a price reduction of 50% within 5 years

The analysis for Scenarios 2 and 3 was carried out with expected future electricity tariffs in 5 years from now. These tariffs were calculated by applying a rate of annual price increase (see Table 1). The consumption volumes used for the analysis were identified depending upon the structure of the respective tariff groups. In the residential sector there are seven different tariffs (1, 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E, 1F) each applying for a different climatic region (see Table 8) and an additional one (DAC) applying for households exceeding a certain upper consumption limit. The respective price per kilowatt-hour of a tariff varies due to season, month and consumption volume. The residential tariffs are substructured in consumption ranges. The logic of these ranges is as follows: the higher the consumption of a household the higher the applying tariff. Concerning the option of a photovoltaic system supplying only a certain part of the household’s total electricity demand (partial supply) the system was designed to generate the amount of energy needed to make a lower tariff apply. For systems generating the total electricity demand (full supply) the limits of the tariffs’ consumption ranges were used as hypothetical consumption volumes following the premise that if photovoltaic systems turn out to be cost-saving against a certain tariff that this will happen at the point where the respective tariff switches from a higher to a lower one. For example, in Tariff 1 the tariff changes at consumption volumes of 140 and 250 kWh. So consumption volumes of 140, 249 and 250 kWh were used for the analysis.


Executive Summary

3

Table 7: Key parameters and assumptions

Source: Own display

The structure of the tariffs for the industry and services sectors is quite different from the residential sector. The application of a tariff depends on the type of connection to the national grid (low voltage, medium voltage, high voltage) which again depends on the peak power demand of the electricity user. Furthermore, the applying tariff varies over the day due to the distinction of base, intermediate and peak load intervals. The analysis of these sectors results thus much more complex due to the relevance of the electrical power demand, the distinction of different load intervals and the individuality of the consumption characteristics of different industry and service branches. Because of this complexity the analysis of this part of the study was performed on a more general basis. For every tariff a low, medium and high electricity consumption was identified. Afterwards the impact of a photovoltaic system generating 5% of this consumption was analysed. The following table shows the basic structure of the tariffs applying for the residential and industry and services sectors in Mexico.

Scenario 1

"Current

Prices"

Scenario 2

"Conser-

vative

Outlook"

Scenario 3

"Opti-mistic

outlook"

Scenario 1

"Current

Prices"

Scenario 2

"Conser-

vative

Outlook"

Scenario 3

"Opti-mistic

outlook"

1- 50 kWp 101,000 80,800 50,500

50-100 kWp 96,500 77,200 48,250

100-300 kWp 92,200 73,760 46,100

300-500 kWp 90,200 72,160 45,100

Performance ratio 0.73

0.5 %/°C No efficiency loss assumed

Discount rate

Value added tax

Annual costs for O&M in percentage of

the investment cost for the photovoltaic

system

Type

Efficiency

Lifetime

Efficiency loss due to temperatures

above 25 °C

15%

Polycrystalline

16%

20 years

PV moduls

7%Rate of annual price increase of

electricity tarifs

0.80% 0.50%

8%

Investment cost scenarios

(tax included)

[$/kWp]

Residential Sector Industry and Services Sector

8%

103,000 82,400 51,500


Executive Summary

4

Table 8: Basic structure of tariffs for residential as well as industry and services

Residential sector Industry and services sectors

Minimum average temperature during

summer

Applying tariff

Voltage Maximum demand/Transmission level Applying

tariff

< 25°C 1 Low voltage

< 25 kW 2

≥ 25°C and < 28°C 1A ≥ 25 kW 3

≥ 28°C and < 30°C 1B

Medium voltage

< 100 kW O-M

30°C 1C ≥ 100 kW H-M

31°C 1D ≥ 100 kW, short-time utilisation H-MC

32°C 1E

High voltage

subtransmission H-S

≥ 33°C 1F subtransmission, long-time utilisation H-SL

transmission H-T

transmission, long-time utilisation H-TL

Source: Own display

In addition to the standard approach from the investor’s perspective (micro-approach) and in order to identify the impact of subsidies on market niches and their size in the residential sector two macro-approaches with different underlying assumptions were analysed for each scenario:

Macro-approach “No tariff change”: This approach neglects the possibility of a tariff drop. Market niches identified in this way do not cover cases in which the photovoltaic system turns out financially feasible due to a change to a higher subsidised and thus cheaper tariff.

Macro-approach “No subsidies”: This approach assumes cost-oriented electricity tariffs free of subsidies. Therefore this approach replaces all the existing tariffs by the DAC which is supposed to represent cost covering electricity prices. This approach allows identifying market niches in a world free of subsidies and gives a much clearer idea on the real competitiveness of photovoltaic systems in the Mexican electricity sector.

Core results for the residential sector (micro-approach)

Scenario 1 “Current system prices and niches” (103,000 $/kWp)

Electricity from PV is always more expensive than electricity from the grid without PV: Applying current system prices the study shows that over the twenty years period the average cost per kilowatt-hour generated by a household with a photovoltaic system is always higher than the respective average tariff paid without a photovoltaic system over the same period.

Market niches for some DAC consumers: Nevertheless, in some cases the photovoltaic option supplying a part of the total electricity demand of a household turned out to be cost-saving against purchasing the whole amount of electricity from the grid. The reason for this is the change to a lower tariff caused by the reduction of the electricity consumed from the grid in consequence of generating a part of the electricity with the photovoltaic system. This effect turns out to save costs over the 20 years period only for households


Executive Summary

5

consuming in the most expensive residential tariff (DAC) in a limited number of cities, applying a photovoltaic system only up to a certain size and in general only in regions featuring a radiation of about the national average or higher. If the photovoltaic system’s share of the total electricity supply surpasses a critical point, the increase in PV investment costs offsets the impact of the tariff drop, so that the “niche disappears”.

Figure 2: Derivation of marked niches

Source: Own display

Size of market niches: The described niches apply only to about 2% of the Mexican households from the 28 cities, equivalent to almost 90,000 households. The Federal District, Mexico City, is not considered here due to a lack of data regarding the number of households and their respective consumption volumes. The size of the niches amount to 81 MW equivalent to approximately USD 608 million at Scenario 1 prices (see Table 10). The niche is limited to the following cities marked with a cross in Table 9.

Conclusion: With current system prices the possibilities for a cost-saving application of grid-connected photovoltaic systems in the Mexican household sector are quite limited.

PV system for partial supply:

Tariff [$/kWh]

Generation

cost [$/kWh]Tariff [$/kWh]

Generation

cost [$/kWh]

Average price = (Tariff * Porcentage) + (PV generation costs * Porcentage)

Always if:

Average price < Original tariff* marked niche

Even if:

PV generation costs > Original tariff*

* original tariff = tariff before tarff switch

caused by partial supply by PV system


Executive Summary

6

Table 9: Market niches by city in the residential sector (micro-approach)

Source: Own display

Scenario 2 “Conservative outlook” (82,400 $/kWp)

PV generation costs for high consumption volumes are lower than the tariff without PV: The second scenario shows that nearly for all households paying the DAC both photovoltaic options are cost-saving, partial and full electricity supply. This means that systems also save costs supplying the total electricity demand of a household. It shows further that - in these cases - the average generation costs with a photovoltaic system per kilowatt-hour over the twenty years period of the systems are lower than the average DAC that would have to be paid over the same period without a PV system.

Market niches are not limited to DAC consumers: In the consumption range of the DAC photovoltaic systems are cost-saving in all tariffs but 1F. Furthermore, in all tariffs but 1C and 1F it is possible to save costs in the consumption range next below the DAC in cities with radiations above 5 kWh/m2/d due to the effect of a drop from the highest tariff to a lower one, as has been explained above. The consumption range right below DAC is not cost-saving in Tariff 1C since no city features a radiation considerably above 5 kWh/m2/d and in the case of Tariff 1F since no DAC applies during summer.

DAC below DAC DAC below DAC DAC below DAC

Durango X X X X X

Oaxaca X X X X X


Puebla X X X X X

Distrito Federal X X X X X

Cuautla X X X X

Tepic X X X X X

Nogales X X X X X


Chihuahua X X X X X

Acapulco X X X X X

Poza Rica X X X X X


Cd. Juárez X X X

Monterrey X X X

Tampico X X X

Mérida X X X X

Mazatlán X X X

La Paz X X X X X

Matamoros X X X X X


Culiacán X X X

Guaymas X X X X X

Reynosa X X X


Mexicali X X


Cd. Obregón X X

Hermosillo X X

Tariff 1F

Tariff 1E

Tariff 1D

Tariff 1C

Scenario 3

Tariff 1B

Tariff 1A

Tariff 1

Scenario 1 Scenario 2


Executive Summary

7

Size of market niches: The described niches apply to about 17% of the Mexican households of the 28 cities, equivalent to almost a million households. The size of the niche amounts to 693 MW equivalent to approximately USD 5,190 million at Scenario 2 prices (see Table 10). In every single city of the cities that were analysed exists some kind of niche (see Table 9).

Conclusion: This scenario shows that it is quite likely that consumers close to the DAC limits (below or above) will enjoy in approximately five years generation costs per kilowatt-hour with a photovoltaic system that are lower than the price per kWh without PV system. This results in significant market and cost-saving opportunities for grid-connected PV use in Mexico for a range of different consumption levels.

Scenario 3 “Optimistic outlook” (51,500 $/kWp)

PV generation cost-saving in most cases: This scenario shows a strong potential for cost savings by the use of photovoltaic systems for all residential tariffs. Cost-saving applications in the consumption ranges next below the DAC are possible in all regions.

Strong market niches for middle range and large consumers: For all cities considered in the study the possibility exists to save costs in the consumption range next below the DAC by full or partial supply photovoltaic option. In all tariffs but 1F the generation costs with a photovoltaic system are even lower than the average tariff that would have to be paid in the consumption range next below the DAC without a PV system. Only in the lowest consumption range of the tariffs the generation costs of a photovoltaic system are still higher than the tariff.

Size of market niches: The described niches apply to about 27% of the Mexican households of the 28 cities, equivalent to almost 1.5 million households. The size of the niche amounts to 1336 MW equivalent to approximately USD 6,225 million at Scenario 3 prices (see Table 10). In every single city out the cities that were analysed exists some kind of niche (see Table 9).

Conclusion: This scenario shows clearly that by halving the prices photovoltaic systems would become cost-saving in Mexico for all consumption volumes exceeding the basic consumption range. As a result, the photovoltaic market would become promising to attract strong private investment.


Executive Summary

8

Table 10 gives an overview about the niches’ sizes for all three scenarios.

Table 10: Size of niches in the residential sector (micro-approach)

Source: Own display

Potential

capacity Households Size of niche

Range of

PV size

[MW] [n] [mill. USD] [kW]


2 Chihuahua 9 14,941 67

3 Puebla 7 10,993 49

4 Poza Rica 6 9,994 45

5 Acapulco 5 7,713 35

54 89,622 403

Total 28 Cities 81 133,499 608

2%

1 Guadalajara 174 388,224 1,302 0.1 - 1.3

2 Cuautla 52 73,297 392 0.6 - 1.9

3 Chihuahua 50 60,298 376 0.1 - 2.9

4 Nogales 44 47,799 332 0.6 - 1.9

5 Puebla 41 89,854 306 0.1 - 1.3

362 659,471 2,708

Total 28 Cities 693 956,629 5,190

17%

1 Guadalajara 174 388,224 814 0.1 - 1.3

2 Mexicali 141 44,606 659 0.2 - 15.5

3 Monterrey 124 110,034 581 0.1 - 3.7

4 Cd. Juarez 88 86,143 413 0.1 - 3.7

5 Tampico 66 55,366 307 0.1 - 3.7

593 684,372 2,774

Total 28 Cities 1,336 1,486,362 6,255

27%

Scenario 3

"Optimistic

outlook"Total "Top 5"

Scenario 1

"Current

niches"Total "Top 5"

Scenario 2

"Conservative

Outlook"Total "Top 5"

Scenario "Top 5"


Executive Summary

9

Core results for the residential sector (macro-approach)

Macro-approach “No tariff change”

No niches for Scenario 1.

Significant market niches for Scenario 2 and 3 in spite of unfavorable assumption.

Macro-approach “No subsidies”

No niches for Scenario 1.

Huge market niches for Scenario 2 and 3. Compared to the niches found by the micro-approach of the residential sector, the size of the niche in megawatt-hours of the macro-approach “No subsidies” is five and a half times bigger in Scenario 2 and four and a half times in Scenario 3.

Conclusion

Subsidies cause significant market distortion to the disadvantage for the application of photovoltaic systems.

The application of photovoltaic systems offers huge potential for the Mexican government to cutback subsidies on the one hand while on the other hand providing clean and cheap energy to a large part of its citizens.

Table 11 illustrates the total sizes of the market niches of the scenarios for the macro-approaches “No tariff change” and “No subsidies”.

Table 11: Total size of market niches from a macro-perspective

Source: Own display

Macro-approach "No tariff change"

Potential

capacity Households Size of

niche

[MWp] [n] [mill. USD]

1

"Current niches"

2

"Conservative outlook"516 224,462 3,867

3

"Optimistic outlook"1,812 824,533 8,482

Macro-approach "No subsidies"

1

"Current niches"

2

"Conservative outlook"4,580 5,607,111 34,308

3

"Optimistic outlook"7,328 5,607,111 34,308

Scenario

no niches

no niches


Executive Summary

10

Core results for the industry and services sectors

The following results refer to market niches for companies purchasing their electricity in one of the “general tariffs” (Tariff 2, 3, O-M, H-M, H-MC, H-S, H-SL, H-T, H-TL). As mentioned above the analysis compared a situation without a PV system with an investment in a PV system that would serve 5% of a company’s electricity demand.

Scenario 1 “Current system prices”

Electricity from PV is always more expensive than electricity from the grid without PV: For the industry and services sectors the analysis found no single case in which a photovoltaic system is cost-saving at Scenario 1 prices, i.e. currently there is no niche for a cost-saving generation of 5% of a company’s electricity consumption.

Scenario 2 “Conservative outlook”

Niches for PV applications in Tariff 2 and 3: Scenario 2 showed first niches for cost-saving applications of photovoltaic systems in the Mexican industry and services sectors. Niches for the generation of 5% of a company’s electricity exist in all regions of Tariff 2 and furthermore for regions featuring high radiations of about 6 kWh/m2/d in Tariff 3.

Size of market niches: Although on the first look it may appear that the niche is quite small it has to be pointed out that Tariff 2 includes about 93% of all users that fall in the “general tariffs”. In total, this niche applies to approximately 2.5 million enterprises (see Table 12). A quantification of the niches in MW and market volume in financial terms was methodologically unfeasible due to limited data.

Conclusion: As the price reductions assumed in this scenario are quite conservative it can be expected that for most Mexican companies photovoltaic systems may become interesting in coming years.

Scenario 3 “Optimistic outlook”

Niches for PV applications in Tariff 2, 3, O-M and H-MC: Scenario 3 shows niches in Tariff 2 and 3 for an average radiation of 4, 5 to 6 kWh/m2/d (which nearly covers all of the populated Mexican territory). For the tariffs O-M and H-MC photovoltaic systems would be cost-saving for radiations of about 5 to 6 kWh/m2/d.

Size of market niches: Photovoltaic applications could be relevant to an estimated 98% of all users in the “general tariffs”, equivalent to approximately 2.7 million enterprises (see Table 12).

Conclusion: If market prices for PV systems decline as foreseen in this Scenario, PV applications are very likely to attract strong investment from companies.

The following table gives an overview about the niches’ sizes for all three scenarios.


Executive Summary

11

Table 12: Size of niches in the industry and services sectors (micro-approach)

Source: Own display

Conclusions and outlook

The study shows that despite of excellent conditions for photovoltaic systems in Mexico there are hardly any opportunities at current PV prices for cost-saving applications in the residential as well as in the industry and services sectors. The subsidies currently granted to households pose a barrier to PV market development in Mexico; above all if we take into account that those regions with the best conditions for the use of photovoltaic systems, i.e. the regions with the highest solar radiation in country, do - for social policy reasons - receive as well the highest subsidies. This makes it even more difficult for PV systems to be competitive against electricity prices since these are kept artificially low. Any cutbacks of these subsidies would directly increase market niches for photovoltaic systems in Mexico. Nevertheless and even with subsidies in place, it seems very likely that photovoltaic systems will become cost-saving for middle and upper class households and most companies throughout Mexico in the near future.

While it is good news that photovoltaic systems will be able to compete with electricity tariffs in the near future despite of partly quite significant subsidy levels, it would obviously – and not only for the government but as well for the Mexican people as a whole – be a much more attractive option to combine a growing photovoltaic market with decreasing subsidy levels. International experience with renewable energies shows that promotion schemes play a predominant role in order to shape these markets for various reasons such as high upfront investment costs, lacking awareness among potential investors, etc. In contrast to many other markets, it might be easier to establish a promotion scheme in Mexico, since Mexico could define a promotion mechanism based on the logic of reallocating financial resources that are currently already foreseen for public spending. The reallocation would take place in the form of redirecting financial resources from spending them to subsidize electricity tariffs to using at least a part of these resources to stimulate the photovoltaic market. A logical next step in this direction would thus be to carry out a detailed analysis of possible promotion schemes that would allow to create such a win-win-situation. In the meanwhile and in order to facilitate investment decision making the Excel-model developed for the study does also offer a tool which enables interested people to figure out in a couple of minutes for their specific case whether an investment in a grid-connected photovoltaic system would make good financial sense. The “Photovoltaic Calculator” is available at: www.conuee.gob.mx and www.gtz.de/mexico.

Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3

Potential enterprises

[#]0 2,557,478 2,716,943

Percentage of overall

enterprises [%]0 93 98

http://www.gtz.de/mexico


Introduction

13

1 Introduction

1.1 Background and Motivation

The last years showed an unprecedented growth of the world’s energy consumption. Only during the year 2004 the world energy consumption rose by 4.3%.1 Old and new emerging economies compete more and more aggressively for fossil resources to feed their ever growing hunger for energy. Direct effects of this policy are drastically growing prices for fossil fuels, political conflicts to the point of political destabilisation of regions and armed conflicts. On the other hand the drastic impact on our environment of the accelerated exploitation and consumption of fossil fuels becomes more and more evident. The contamination of soil, groundwater and air destroys plant and animal live worldwide and causes diseases among the human population making life impossible in some of the most affected areas. On the global level, scientists discover more and more phenomena which either seem to be directly linked to the burning of fossil fuels, for example global dimming, or to which at least an impact of mankind appears to be very probable, for example climate change.

The answer a society gives to the question how it wants and can provide the energy it consumes is thus not only crucial to its economical development but also to the standard of living it wants to achieve for its people. Today renewable energy sources are more and more able to economically cover a bigger part of a nation’s energy consumption. As a result some countries have already achieved significant progress in the employment of renewable energies in recent years. As one of the major economies in Latin America with a large territorial extension and favourable climatic conditions, Mexico has an enormous potential for the use of renewable energies. Regarding solar energy, for instance, Mexico has excellent conditions with an average solar radiation amounting to around 5.0 kWh/m2/d compared to e.g. a significantly lower average of 3.2 kWh/m2/d in Germany.2 This underlines Mexico’s advantageous conditions regarding the use of solar energy, which is addressed by this study. However, Mexico’s huge potential has hardly been tapped so far. Currently Mexico has only installed about 19.7 MWp of photovoltaic systems. In contrast, Germany, a country with a much lower solar radiation and less population has installed about 2,500 MWp.

3

The study in hand focuses – from an financial perspective – on the use of photovoltaic systems in the residential, industry and services sectors in Mexico and presents a comparative cost analysis.

1 http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weltenergieverbrauch

2 http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaik

3 Photovoltaic Power Systems Programme – Annual Report 2006. International Energy Agency (IEA) – Photovoltaic

Power Systems Programme. Page 78.


Introduction

14

The study was realised by GTZ (German technical cooperation) on request from the Mexican National Commission for Energy Conservation (Conuee – Comisión Nacional para el Uso Eficiente de la Energia) in the frame of Mexican-German technical cooperation and was motivated by a couple of factors. The two core factors in this context were: On the one hand, there is, as outlined above, a huge gap between current use and actual potential for the use of photovoltaic systems in Mexico. On the other hand, there is no clarity under which criteria and to what extent photovoltaic systems can be a financially advantageous option for households and companies.

1.2 Objective and scope

The core objective of this study is to provide up-to-date information on the financial feasibility of grid-connected photovoltaic systems in the Mexican residential, industry and services sector. With regard to the quite limited information available at present concerning this issue the study in hand gives a first overview about the impact of photovoltaic systems in the residential, industry and services sectors by analysing if the application of photovoltaic systems in these sectors can save costs compared to purchasing the electricity from the national grid. Cases featuring such a cost-saving effect will be referred to as niches for photovoltaic application. This information should provide potential private investors as well as the respective governmental officials with a basis regarding investment decisions on photovoltaic systems. The study gives no further information about the profitability, the amortisation or else financial aspect of photovoltaic systems identified as being cost-saving.

The cost analysis on which the study is based describes the particular situation of a potential investor. It was performed in two parts, one concerning the residential sector and its respective tariffs and a second one regarding the industry and services sectors. For the analysis of the residential sector 29 Mexican cities were chosen in order to consider different climates and solar radiations. Due to a quite irregular structure of the tariffs applying for the industry and services sectors the analysis of these sectors was performed on a more general basis choosing most often three significant regions of Mexico. Furthermore a macro-perspective is applied additionally for the residential sector in order to identify the impact of subsidies on market niches and their size from a governmental point of view.

For the analysis of the three sectors the study mainly focuses on the tariff system of the Federal Commission for Electricity (CFE – Comisión Federal de Electricidad), which is by far the bigger of the two Mexican electricity operators (CFE: 70% of generation capacity, 96% of transmission net, ca. 24 million clients). Only for the purpose of including the Federal District (D.F. – Distrito Federal) into the analysis the tariffs of second operator, Electricity and Power of the Centre (LyFC – Luz y Fuerza del Centro) were consulted (LyFC: 1.6% of generation capacity, ca. 5 million clients). Nevertheless these tariffs are not explained in the present study as the tariffs of LyFC applying for the D.F. match those of Tariff 1 of CFE.


Introduction

15

1.3 Methodology and data collection

Technical information as well as quantitative and qualitative assumptions were partly provided by and fully agreed upon with Conuee in several meetings. The calculations were realised with traditional financial mathematical methods of investment appraisal using purely dynamical methods and are based on data either already available or assumed values.

The study is based on a cost comparison of net present values for a 20 years period of the total costs a household or company faces if the electricity is purchased from the national grid or is supplied by a photovoltaic system. The “grid electricity costs” are calculated considering an annual price increase of the electricity tariffs. For the calculation of the net present values of the total costs of the respective photovoltaic system the necessary size of the system is determined. This is done in the first step by analysing the Mexican tariffs of the respective sectors. Based on this analysis significant consumption volumes are identified for households as well as companies. In the second step photovoltaic systems are sized for these consumption volumes. Here two different photovoltaic options are considered for the residential sector and one for the industry and services sectors. On the basis of determined system size, photovoltaic investment costs per kWp and the percentage of the annual operation and maintenance costs at the total investment costs the total costs as net present value for a 20 years period of each photovoltaic system is calculated. The electricity consumption is assumed to be fix over the 20 years period. Based on the results of the cost comparison conclusions of the current and future situation of the Mexican photovoltaic market are derived.

1.4 Structure

The introduction to the study in this section (Chapter 1) is followed by a general overview about photovoltaic in Mexico and provides some basic market data (Chapter 2). Chapter 3 is dedicated to the analysis of existing electricity tariffs for the three sectors (residential, industry and services). Chapter 4 focuses on the definition and the seizing of the photovoltaic systems as well as explaining the assumptions underlying their calculation. The next section (Chapter 5) explains on which basis the overall costs for electricity purchased from the grid and for the photovoltaic systems are compared and how they are calculated. Furthermore the chapter gives an overview of the assumed financial parameters. This chapter is followed by the actual financial comparison presenting the results for three different scenarios of the different sectors including the results of the macro-analysis of the residential sector (Chapter 6). The study finalizes with a conclusion for the three considered sectors based on the results of the economic comparison and some reflections on the quality of the overall study.


The Mexican market for photovoltaic systems

17

2 The Mexican market for photovoltaic systems

2.1 Technical potential in Mexico

In Mexico the technical potential for the application of photovoltaic systems appears to be quite promising. Already from a superficial point of view the yearly national average radiation of 5 kWh/m2/d appears to be quite high. Giving a closer look at the distribution of this average radiation one will be surprised by the extremely high values of six and more kilowatt-hours per square meter and day in some areas of the country.4 As desert lands these areas feature further characteristics favourable for the application of photovoltaic systems like cloudless skies and a regular distribution of the annual radiation. Adding further to the importance of this potential is the existence of bigger settlements and cities in or close to these areas, e.g., the city of Hermosillo. The daily electricity demand of the local households very often features curves connected with the curve of the daily radiation which is due to the common use of cooling equipment like ventilators and air conditioning posing a further advantage for the utilisation of photovoltaic systems.

To illustrate this huge potential for photovoltaic in Mexico one should regard the fact that a mere 0.06% of the Mexican national territory would be sufficient to generate the overall electricity consumption of Mexico by the means of photovoltaic assuming the consumption data of the year 2005 (Annex 1). Furthermore, one should not forget that the bigger part of that area is already available as rooftops which can be used for photovoltaic applications without the need of sealing further soil.5

2.2 Market overview

The Mexican photovoltaic market sales during 2006 were a little below 1 MWp, which reflects a market recovery in comparison with the previous year. The estimation of the market segmentation that could be found was as follows:

511 kWp in rural electrification

33 kWp in water pumping systems

110 kWp for grid-connected photovoltaic systems

55 kWp in professional applications (telecommunications, off-shore oil platforms, cathodic protection, and eco-tourism)

340 kWp of none defined off-grid applications.6

4 http://www.conae.gob.mx/wb/CONAE/CONA_1433_irradiacion_en_la_re

5 Obviously a 100% electricity coverage by the means of photovoltaic systems is no real objective and is thus only

theoretical. In this context the number is simply used to make the potential more tangible. 6 Photovoltaic Power Systems Programm – Annual Report 2006. International Energy Agency (IEA) – Photovoltaic

Power Systems Programm. Page 78.



18

The cumulative photovoltaic capacity installed in Mexico by the end of 2006 was 19.7 MWp. Rural application is still the major application for photovoltaic systems serving as a solution for

off-grid electrification or to avoid the high tariffs for pumping water for irrigation. An important trend in the Mexican photovoltaic market is the off- or on-grid application of systems as prestige objects run by private companies or institutions to support or create a “green” corporate image. Such kind of projects are currently under planning by VW in the city of Puebla, Walmart and other companies or are already installed such as the well-known grid-connected photovoltaic system of Green Corner in the Federal District. On the other hand, grid-connected photovoltaic is attracting more and more the attention of the national utility (CFE) and government officials as an alternative to support the electrical grid in some regions. As a result, pilot projects were launched to gather scientific information and experience. An important project of that kind was launched in 2006 by the Baja California State Government with technical support from the Electrical Research Institute (IIE – Instituto de Investigaciones Electricas). The goal is the construction of a photovoltaic neighbourhood of 500 low-income houses in the city of Mexicali, in northwest Mexico, with one grid-connected photovoltaic array of 1 kWp each. The first phase of the initiative will consist of 220 such installations, of which the first 110 systems came on line in December 2006.7 Another project to analyze potentials of grid-connected photovoltaic systems was launched in January 2000 by the IIE which is also the representing institution of Mexico in the Photovoltaic Power Systems Programme (PVPS) of the International Energy Agency (IEA). Part of the programme was the installation of four grid-connected systems in Mexicali, B.C. and a demonstration plant in Hermosillo in the state of Sonora.8 As a production base for the photovoltaic industry there are several assembly facilities in Mexico. Of these, only the company ERDM Solar, a contractor of Q-Cells, produces for the Mexican market itself. The bigger assembly facilities for photovoltaic cells produce under the so called “maquiladora” scheme in the city of Tijuana. These maquiladoras take advantage of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) by exporting duty free to the USA.9 Among those are companies like United Solar and Kyocera.10 11 Recently, the German solar cell producer Q-Cells announced an investment in production capacity of up US $3.5 billion in the mid- to long-term in the state of Baja California.12

7 Photovoltaic Power Systems Programm – Annual Report 2006. International Energy Agency (IEA) – Photovoltaic

Power Systems Programm. Page 78. 8 Trends in Photovoltaic Applications – Survey report of selected IEA countries between 1992 and 2006. International

Energy Agency (IEA) – Photovoltaic Power Systems Programm. August 2007. Page 1. 9 Photovoltaic Power Systems Programm – Annual Report 2006. International Energy Agency (IEA) – Photovoltaic

Power Systems Programm. Page 78. 10

http://www.uni-solar.com/ 11

http://www.kyocera.de/ 12

http://www.q-cells.com/



19

2.3 Regulatory framework

The regulatory body for the Mexican electricity and gas sector is the Regulatory Commission for Energy (CRE – Comisión Reguladora de Energía) which is a deconcentrated agency of the Federal Ministry of Energy (SENER – Secretaría de Energía) with technical and operational autonomy.13

Concerning the application of small scale (up to 30kW) grid-connected photovoltaic systems the “Contract for Interconnection of Small Scale Solar Energy Sources” (Contrato de Interconexión para Fuente de Energía Solar en Pequeña Escala) is the regulatory basis for grid-connected use of photovoltaic systems in Mexico. It was published by the CRE on the 27th July 2007 by passing the Resolution No. RES/176/200. The purpose of this contract is to realize and regulate the interconnection between potential photovoltaic electricity generators and the two operators of the power grid – Electricity and Power of the Centre concerning the Federal District and the Federal Commission for Electricity concerning all Mexican states with the exception of the former.

The contract is based on the principle of “Net Energy Metering” that allows customers with an eligible power generator to offset the cost of their electricity use with energy they feed into the grid. A specially programmed “net meter” is installed to measure the difference between electricity the customer purchases and exports to the grid. Methods for handling Net Metering vary between different countries and even within a certain country. In the Mexican case each kilowatt-hour exported to the grid is regarded as equal to a kilowatt-hour purchased from it. Thus a generator has to pay the amount of energy his consume exceeds the energy generated by himself. If more energy is fed in to the grid than consumed the difference is considered as a credit which can be consumed by the generator within a period of 12 months.14

The contract applies to photovoltaic applications of up to 10 kWp serving residential uses and to applications of up to 30 kWp for other low voltage uses. Up to now there is no regulatory framework concerning the application of bigger industrial applications above 30 kWp. However such systems will be discussed in the present study assuming the regulations of the “Contract for Interconnection of Small Scale Solar Energy Sources”. In doing so, it was also assumed that the electric output made available by the photovoltaic application will be offset against the peak output demand invoiced by the CFE in accordance with its terms of calculation. For the two industry and services sectors another law is important with respect to the use of renewable energy sources. Article 40 XII of the “Law about the income tax“ (Ley de Impuestos sobre la renta) allows companies a 100% deduction of the investment costs for machines or equipment for the generation of electricity from renewable energy sources if the operation time exceeds a minimum of five years.15 In the present study this deduction was applied for all photovoltaic systems of the industry and services sectors.

13

Prospectiva del Sector Eléctrico 2006 – 2015. Secretaría de Energía. 2006. 14

Resolucion No. RES/176/2007. Secretaría de Energía. 15

Artículo 40 XII, Ley de Impuestos sobre la renta.


Mexican electricity tariffs

21

3 Mexican electricity tariffs

The existing electricity tariffs are always the benchmark for the generation costs of new energy sources (together with generation costs of other technologies). For this reason to every financial analysis of renewable energy sources such as photovoltaic systems in the present case, an understanding of the tariffs is fundamental. Therefore, this chapter is dedicated to give a short overview about the Mexican electricity tariffs and to provide all the information necessary for the cost comparison in Chapter 6. The tariffs of CFE regarded in this chapter are the residential tariffs of the group “Specific Tariffs” and for the in industry and services sector the tariffs for low, medium and high voltage of the group “General Tariffs”.

3.1 Determining factors for electricity consumption in Mexico

3.1.1 Residential sector

Electrical energy consumption in the Mexican residential sector is mainly determined by the determining factors shown in Figure 3.16

Figure 3: Determining factors for residential electricity consumption in Mexico

Source: Own display

Climate: Due to the size and location of its territory Mexico’s climate varies from subtropical over alpine up to arid. Climate is the most important factor for the electricity consumption in Mexico as it determines if households do or do not need to make use of air conditioning equipment and what kind of equipment they use. In general ventilators are used at least occasionally in all parts of the country, whereas evaporative air coolers are rather used in areas of hot dry climate and air conditioning in hot dry and hot humid areas.17 Thus, depending on the climate the electricity consumption varies in a wide range. For example, the average annual electricity consumption of a user located in Hermosillo (practically a desert city) is several times higher than the consumption of a user located in Guadalajara with a semi-dry/ semi-humid climate.18

16

IIE Boletín – Resultados tecnologicos del sector electrico aplicables al petrolero.1998. 17

Seminario Nacional Sobre el Uso Racional de la Energia – Memoria Técnica. 1998. 18

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guadalajara%2C_Jalisco

Determining factors for electricity consumption

Climate EquipmentIncomeSeason Habits



22

Season: Referring to electricity consumption, usually two seasons, summer and winter (respectively non-summer) are distinguished. Summer is defined as the six successional hottest months of the year. Again, because of the size of the country the start of the summer season varies from February to May depending on the respective region. The seasonal impact on electricity consumption is based on the same principle as the climatic one, i.e. during the warmer season more electricity is used due to the use of air conditioning equipment and due to higher electricity consume by refrigerators, for example. Furthermore, the seasonal impact on the electricity consumption obviously correlates with the climate. In the Federal District (D.F. – Distrito Federal) for example, electricity users consume approximately the same amount of energy throughout the year with only a slight increase during the hotter months, whereas in Mexicali (a city with extreme changes in temperatures) parts of the users consume up to five times more during the summer season than compared to the winter season.19

Income, equipment, habits: Further determining factors with impact on the electricity consumption are strictly connected with each other and cannot be regarded separately. Obviously the amount of income of a household is most crucial to what kind of equipment is affordable for it. The financial situation together with the habits and social factors like family size, schedule of presence and absence from the household further decides how this equipment is used. Although income distribution in Mexico is considered to have become more equal during the last decade (see above) the differences found between regions as well as inside communities can still be referred to as highly unequal. Furthermore family sizes tend to be biggest in rural areas which at the same time feature lower income levels compared to the urban areas. So, for many Mexican families electricity costs pose a significant monthly expense which is why electricity prices for households and in particular for low consumption households are highly subsidized by the government.20

3.1.2 Industry and services sectors

Obviously season and climate also have an impact on the electricity consumption of industrial and in many cases even more on service companies. However, it is difficult to make general statements for these sectors. In principal the electricity consumption of companies of both sectors depends on their kind of business, production (industry), organisation (for example, two or three work shifts) and used machinery. According to these determinants the course of the electricity demand of companies is quite individual. Figure 4 points out to that fact by showing some electricity demand graphs of different industrial branches. Figure 5 shows the same for the service sector.

19

IIE Boletín – Resultados tecnologicos del sector electrico aplicables al petrolero.1998. 20

Seminario Nacional Sobre el Uso Racional de la Energia – Memoria Técnica. 1998



23

Figure 4: Examples for demand courses in the industry sector

Electrical equipment factory

Wire factory Bread factory

Machine factory Electrical equipment factory Electrical equipment factory

Wire factory Bread factory

Machine factory

Source: Prof. Dr. Voß, A.: Energiesysteme II – Rationelle Energieanwendung und Energieanlagen. Institute for Energy Economics and Rational Use of Energy (IER). Page 23-26.

Figure 5: Examples for demand courses in the service sector

Source: Prof. Dr. Voß, A.: Energiesysteme II – Rationelle Energieanwendung und Energieanlagen. Institute for Energy Economics and Rational Use of Energy (IER). Page 23-26.

Supermarket Indoor swimming pool

Hotel School

Supermarket Indoor swimming pool

Hotel School



24

3.2 Overview of residential tariffs

The Mexican residential tariffs are structured by climate conditions. Seven groups of tariffs are distinguished based on the minimum average temperature during summer (Table 13). Each of these groups is further subdivided into ranges of consumption for different amounts of electricity consumed per month. 21

Table 13: Overview of residential tariff groups (2007)

Tariff For locations with a minimum average temperature during summer of

1 < 25°C

1A ≥ 25°C and < 28°C

1B ≥ 28°C and < 30°C

1C 30°C

1D 31°C

1E 32°C

1F ≥ 33°C

Source: Own display

As described above climate is one of the most important factors for the electricity consumption. Corresponding to that importance CFE’s tariffs were structured by temperatures in order to be able to offer low electricity prices in hot areas where consumption is necessarily higher. That also means that depending on the climatic varieties within a region there is not necessarily a single tariff applying for a whole region but several.22 Each tariff itself again features a structure. To get a clearer impression of this structure and to introduce the terms used throughout the study Figure 6 shows a cutout of Tariff 1A as an example. The tariffs and its prices applied for this study can be found in Annex 2.

21

CFE - http://www.cfe.gob.mx/es/InformacionAlCliente/conocetutarifa/ 22

CFE - http://www.cfe.gob.mx/es/InformacionAlCliente/conocetutarifa/



25

Figure 6: Residential tariff structure

Source: Own display

As can be seen, each tariff includes two ranges of consumption. For example in the case of Tariff 1A, there is one range for users consuming less than 150 kWh per month and another range for users consuming more than 150 kWh per month. The “lower consumption range” is stronger subsidized than the “upper consumption range” following the political idea that prices for the poor which commonly consume less energy should be lower. The limit of how much electricity can be consumed monthly before the upper and more expensive range applies increases step by step from Tariff 1 to 1F reflecting the aforementioned impact of the temperature on electricity consumption as well as the political willingness not to discriminate people living in areas with higher temperatures with higher electricity costs. Table 14 clarifies that point by giving the invoice amounts for each tariff for an example of a consumption of 140 kWh for the month of June 2007. In accordance to what has been explained before the invoice differs quite drastically from Tariff 1 to Tariff 1F.

Tariff 1A

Summer season

Consumption of up to 150 kWh per month

Range Jan. Feb. Mar.

Basic 1 - 100 0,541 0,543 0,545

Intermediate 0,642 0,644 0,646

Consumption exceeding 150 kWh per month


Basic 1 - 100 0,541 0,543 0,545

Intermediate 101 - 150 0,812 0,815 0,818

Exceeding 2,164 2,171 2,178

Winter season



Basic 1 - 75 0,621 0,623 0,625

Intermediate 0,735 0,737 0,739


Rango de consumo Jan. Feb. Mar.

Basic 1 - 75 0,621 0,623 0,625

Intermediate 76 - 125 1,022 1,025 1,028

Exceeding 2,164 2,171 2,178

Seasonal division Consumption range

Subconsumption ranges Tariff (price to customer)



26

Table 14 : Invoice amounts for a consumption of 140 kWh (June 2007)

Source: Own display

Regarding the ranges a further subdivision can be observed. Figure 7 shows the structure of Tariff 1A (prices of January, winter 2007) as an example.

Figure 7: Residential tariff substructure (Tariff 1A, January 2007)

Source: Own display

According to what is shown in Figure 7 the electricity costs invoiced by the CFE to a given household are calculated as follows:

For example, 70 kWh were consumed in January (winter season), so the invoice would be calculated as shown below. The prices of the line “Basic” apply for the first 75 kWh consumed in the respective month:

70 kWh x 0.621 $/kWh

+ taxes

= invoice amount for electricity

Tariff Invoice amount for 140 kWh [$]

1 132,16

1A 81,18

1B 78,66

1C 77,14

1D 77,14

1E 62,44

1F 62,44

Consumption [kWh]

Tariff [$]

(price to

customer)

100 150

0.91

1.07

For consumption volumes

below 150 kWh

1.50

3.17

Consumption [kWh]

Tariff [$]

(price to

customer)

100 150

0.91

1.07

1.50

3.17

For consumption volumes

above 150 kWh



27

If more than 75 kWh (but less than 150 kWh) were consumed, then for the amount of kilowatt-hours exceeding the 75 kWh limit the prices of the line “Intermediate” would apply. If, for example, 90 kWh were consumed in January the invoice amount would be:

75 kWh x 0.621 $/kWh

+ 15 kWh x 0.735 $/kWh

+ taxes


With the exception of Tariff 1 it is further distinguished between summer and winter season again due to the fact that higher temperatures cause higher electricity consumption. To compensate this impact of the summer season, prices applied in summer are lower and consumption limits for ranges as well as for the subdivision of the ranges (Basic, Intermediate, Exceeding) are higher. So for example, in the case of Tariff 1A the prices of the line “Basic” apply for the first 75 kWh of the monthly consumption during winter, whereas in summer “Basic” prices apply for the first 100 kWh of the monthly consumption.

Another characteristic of the Mexican residential tariffs is the minimum consumption which is 25 kWh per month. These kilowatt-hours have to be paid for as a kind of service charge in the case the client consumed less than 25 kWh.

To fully understand how the electricity prices are structured one last element of the tariffs must be explained, the so called “DAC”. The Residential Electricity Tariff for High Consumption (DAC – Servicio Domestico de Alto Consumo) applies for users whose electricity consumption surpasses a certain top limit. In accordance with the consumption limits for ranges and subdivisions of ranges this limit also depends on the tariff applying for the considered region and increases step by step from Tariff 1 to Tariff 1F.23

Table 15 shows the consumption limits for each tariff, some selected cities, the corresponding DAC regions as well as the respective DAC tariffs. For example, if a user to whom applies Tariff 1A consumes in Morelos consumes on average over the last 12 months more than 300 kWh a month then the whole amount of kilowatt-hours is multiplied with the respective DAC tariff for the region (instead of the “normal” residential tariffs) in order to calculate the amount to be invoiced for electricity. DAC prices are higher than the usual tariffs as they are not subsidized. The DAC prices applied for this study can be found in Annex 3.

23

http://www.cfe.gob.mx/es/InformacionAlCliente/conocetutarifa/



28

Table 15: DAC limits and tariffs in exemplary cities and regions (residential sector)

Source: Own display

In contrast to the “normal” or non-DAC electricity tariffs the overall electricity charge of the DAC consists of two components. The first one is a price per kilowatt-hour whose value depends on the considered month and region whereas six regions are distinguished. The second one is a fix charge varying from month to month which is not related to the amount of electricity consumption.24 The fix charge per month used is 58.61$ (Jan. 2007).

Continuing with the example of the user of the Tariff 1A, suppose that this user had a consumption of 325 kWh in January and lives in the northwestern region, thus his invoice would be calculated as follows:

325 kWh x 2.37 $/kWh

+ 58.61 $

+ taxes


From what has been explained it can be concluded that the electricity prices for Mexican households are not only determined by the volume of consumption but also by season and region. The structure of the tariffs corresponds with the determining factors of the electricity consumption. This means, in hotter areas the structure compensates to some extent the necessarily higher use of electricity by applying lower prices. On the other side, a limit is set by the DAC to apply at least cost-covering prices above a certain use of electrical energy. The DAC applies for volumes of electricity consumption clearly above Mexican average consumption suggesting that the political idea behind is a kind of welfare-based top-down cross-subsidization from the wealthy to the less wealthy part of the population. One might think that the DAC could apply as well for large families which would foil the idea outlined before. However, data in Table 16 shows that more than a big family is needed to consume, for example, more than 1,000 kWh a month in the case of Tariff 1D.


Tariff DAC region Exemplary cities DAC limit [kWh/month]Tariff

[$/kWh]

1 Central Distrito Federal 250 2.54

1A South and Peninsula Cuautla 300 2.35

1B South and Peninsula Acapulco 400 2.35

1C North & Nordeast Monterrey 850 2.31

1D Baja California South (Summer/Winter) La Paz 1,000 2.69/2.12

1E Northwest Guaymas 2,000 2.37

1F Baja California (Summer/Winter) Mexicali 2,500 2.46/2.12



29

Table 16: Average monthly consumption data of equipments of a four-person household

Source: www.veoe.at/70.html?&L=

Summing up this chapter it is important to point out that concerning the Mexican household tariffs two mechanisms are at work whose impact on the cost effectiveness of photovoltaic systems must be clarified:

The mechanism of subsidies being paid by the Mexican government in order to keep tariffs low for the average Mexican household.

The mechanism of offering more of these subsidies to regions which feature high temperatures by applying higher consumption range limits to them.

3.3 Overview of tariffs for industry and services sectors

The tariffs applying for the industry and services sectors are structured according to the type of interconnection to the grid into low, high and medium voltage tariff groups. Each tariff group contains several tariffs. Table 17 shows the tariffs belonging to each group. Annex 8 shows the tariffs and its prices in the year 2007 the study is based on.

Table 17: Tariffs for industry and services sector

Voltage Maximum demand/Transmission level Tariff

Low voltage < 25 kW 2

≥ 25 kW 3

Medium voltage

< 100 kW O-M

≥ 100 kW H-M

≥ 100 kW, short-time utilisation H-MC

High voltage

subtransmission H-S

subtransmission, long-time utilisation H-SL

transmission H-T

transmission, long-time utilisation H-TL

Source: Own display

Equipment Monthly consumption [kWh]

Washing machine 27 - 30

Refrigerator (180 liters) 20 - 30

Freezer (200-250 liters) 23 - 31

Small sized equipment 14

TV-set and Hifi-systems including standby 21

Personal computer 6

Illumination 39



30

Low voltage: In the low voltage group Tariff 2 applies for an electricity capacity demand of up to 25 kW and Tariff 3 for the range above. The structure of Tariff 2 is similar to the residential tariffs featuring different prices per kilowatt-hour for the subranges basic, medium and exceeding consumption. Additionally Tariff 2 charges a fix monthly amount. Tariff 3 has a different structure. It charges a price per kilowatt (capacity charge) of the maximum measured demand in the respective month. This maximum demand is determined by CFE measuring the average capacity demand for each interval of 15 minutes. Alongside Tariff 3 features a price per kilowatt-hour as well.25

Medium voltage: Tariff O-M applies for a demand of up to 100 kW, Tariff H-M for the range above and Tariff H-MC only for short utilization and only for the regions Baja California and Northwest. They all three are further subdivided into regions and consist of a price per kilowatt-hour as well as a capacity charge. For Tariff O-M the capacity charge is calculated in the same way as for Tariff 3 depending on the measured maximum demand. In Tariff H-M and H-MC an additional determinant is introduced: the point of time of the electricity consumption. In these tariffs it is distinguished between base, intermediate and peak load energy consumption and demand. So depending on the hour of consumption a different tariff applies per kilowatt-hour again depending on the definition of the hours of the day as base, intermediate and peak load demand interval.26 The more important allocations of these intervals of Tariff H-M being valid for most of the regions are shown in Table 18.27

Table 18: Allocation of intervals for Tariff H-M (2007)

Source: http://www.cfe.gob.mx/aplicaciones/ccfe/tarifas/tarifas/Tarifas.asp?Tarifa=HMC

25

CFE - http://www.cfe.gob.mx/es/InformacionAlCliente/conocetutarifa/ 26

http://www.cfe.gob.mx/es/InformacionAlCliente/conocetutarifa/ 27

For more detailed information on the allocation of consumption periods visit http://www.cfe.gob.mx/es/InformacionAlCliente/conocetutarifa/

Day of the week Base Intermediate Peak

0:00 - 6:00 6:00 - 20:00 20:00 - 22:00

22:00 - 24:00


0:00 - 6:00 6:00 - 18:00 18:00 - 22:00

22:00 - 24:00

Monday to Friday

From the first Sunday of April until the Saturday before the last Sunday

of October

From the last Sunday of October until the Saturday before the first

Sunday of April

Monday to Friday

http://www.cfe.gob.mx/aplicaciones/ccfe/tarifas/tarifas/Tarifas.asp?Tarifa=HMC



31

The charged capacity demand (DF – Demanda Facturada) is calculated by the following formula of CFE:

DF = DP + FRI × max (DI - DP,0) + FRB × max (DB - DPI,0) (3-1)

DP is the maximum capacity demand measured during the peak load interval

DI is the maximum capacity demand measured during the intermediate load interval

DB is the maximum capacity demand measured during the base load interval

DPI is the maximum capacity demand measured during the peak and intermediate load intervals

FRI and FRB are factors of reduction with the following values, depending on the region:

Table 19: FRI and FRB values for Tariff H-M

Source: http://www.cfe.gob.mx/aplicaciones/ccfe/tarifas/tarifas/Tarifas.asp?Tarifa=HM

The calculation of the capacity charge poses an incentive to the company to shift its electricity demand peaks from the peak load interval to the intermediate load interval or – even better – to the base load interval.

High voltage: The high voltage tariff group is further subdivided into subtransmission level, Tariffs H-S and H-SL and transmission level, Tariffs H-T and H-TL. At the subtransmission level electricity is provided at a tension of more than 35 kV but less than 220 kV. Electricity provided at transmission level features a tension equal or above 220 kV. Tariffs H-SL and H-TL apply for their respective level for long-time utilizations. All four tariffs are again subdivided into regions and feature a price per kilowatt-hour and a capacity charge which both work in the same way as in Tariff H-M.28 The formula used for calculating the charged demand is the same as shown above for all tariffs with the exception that for the region Baja California a special formula is used

28


Region FRI FRB

Baja California 0.141 0.070

Baja California South 0.195 0.097

Central 0.300 0.150

Northeast 0.300 0.150

Northwest 0.300 0.150

North 0.300 0.150

Peninsular 0.300 0.150

South 0.300 0.150



32

in this tariff group. The allocation of the intervals and the FRI and FRB values for the tariffs H-S/H-SL and H-T/H-TL can be found in Annex 4 – Annex 7.

Summing up what has been explained about the tariffs for the industry and services sectors it should be recorded that the main differences between these tariffs and the residential tariffs are:

the applied capacity charge

the dependence of the applying tariff upon the hour of the day (base, intermediate, peak load)

the absence of consumption ranges in all tariffs of the industry and services sectors but Tariff 2.

Market Niches for Grid-connected Photovoltaic Systems in Mexico Photovoltaic systems subject to analysis

33

4 Photovoltaic systems subject to analysis To be able to determine the costs of a photovoltaic system the system itself and its ambient conditions must be defined. Furthermore, this chapter describes how the systems for the residential sector and for the industry and services sectors were designed and which assumptions were made. The selection of the photovoltaic modules was subject to an investigation of the Mexican photovoltaic market which also included the preparation of a questionnaire being sent to several dealers. Figure 8 gives an overview of the components and the installation of a grid-connected photovoltaic system.

Figure 8: Components of a grid-connected photovoltaic system

Photovoltaic module

Interruptors=

kWh

Electricitymeter

(bidirectional)

Inverter

Photovoltaic module

Interruptors==

kWhkWh

Electricitymeter

(bidirectional)

Inverter

Source: www.eere.energy.gov/consumer/images/residential_grid_pv.gif

The market research showed that the most common photovoltaic modules in Mexico are polycrystalline modules. Two of three Mexican photovoltaic systems listed in the IEA-PVPS Performance Database use polycrystalline modules and also most dealers mainly offer polycrystalline modules.29 As the study should reflect the present market situation and consider products which are available to households, a polycrystalline module was also chosen for the analysis. According to the quotation of some dealers a module efficiency of 16% is assumed for the calculation. Such a value is quite high for a polycrystalline module but seems justified (see, for example, the product KC200GHT-2 of Kyocera). In addition, the assumption of a rather high efficiency has no impact on the cost analysis as it only influences the calculation of the necessary area for the system.

29 http://www.iea-pvps-task2.org/database/index.htm


Photovoltaic systems subject to analysis

34

4.1 Photovoltaic Systems for the residential sector

For households two different system designs are regarded. The first one sizes the systems in order to supply the total electricity demand of a household and thus should consider what is theoretically possible. The second one considers systems providing a portion of the total electricity demand which poses the actual case of application for photovoltaic systems. The objective of this cost comparison is to derive conclusions about the impact of a photovoltaic system on the electricity costs a household faces. In other words, it should be shown if a photovoltaic system can save costs against the tariffs which would mean that the system is financially feasible.

4.1.1 Performance ratio and efficiency loss factor

Regarding the effective energy production another factor is of great importance beyond the module efficiency, the so called performance ratio. The performance ratio is the quotient of the alternating current yield and the nominal yield of the generator’s direct current.30 Thus, it is independent of the solar radiation. It can be used to compare the performance of photovoltaic systems at different locations. It indicates which portion of the generated current can actually be used. Important factors of influence on the performance ratio are the plant availability, inverter efficiency, clouding and module temperature.31 Solar Modules based on crystalline cells can reach a ratio of 0.85 to 0.95. Grid-connected systems usually have a performance ratio of 70 to 75%.32

In the model a performance ratio of 73% was chosen. However, resulting from the fact that the module temperatures in summer differ widely among regions and therefore efficiencies of modules in hot regions should be lower compared to module efficiencies in milder ones an additional factor was introduced. As the tariffs are structured by the minimum average summer temperatures (see Table 13) this factor reduces the module efficiency during summer by a value depending on the tariff applying for the regarded city. Within this study, this factor is called efficiency temperature loss factor Lt and is calculated as shown below.

2º

)25(%5.0

ª25 Cabove

tC

CmtL

(4-1))

mt: minimum average summer temperature of the tariff [°C]

As can be seen from the formula for each degree Celsius above the 25°C standard temperature a 0.5% efficiency loss is considered.33 For the sizing of the systems for full supply the difference between the norm temperature and the temperature scope of the tariff is divided by two as the sizing of the photovoltaic system is performed for yearly average values which means that the Lt

30

http://www.solarserver.de/lexikon/performance_ratio-e.html 31

http://www.bine.info/pdf/publikation/bi0303internetx.pdf 32

http://www.solarserver.de/lexikon/performance_ratio-e.html 33

http://www.level.org.nz/energy/renewable-electricity-generation/photovoltaic-systems/



35

efficiency loss occurring during the six hottest months of the year is split over the whole year. As for the sizing of the systems for partial supply the individual months are regarded the factor is only applied during the months of the summer period and thus is not divided by two. In other words for the systems for full supply the Lt factor is applied in each of the twelve months of the year whereas for the systems for partial supply only in the six hottest months. Table 20 gives the assumed Lt values for the different tariffs.

Table 20: High temperature efficiency loss values

Source: Own display

As said before, the performance ratio usually includes the efficiency losses resulting from high temperatures, so the resulting performance ratios actually assumed for summer are lower as the high temperature losses were still not considered up to this point. These actual values of the performance ratios are shown in Table 21 for the systems for partial supply and are calculated as follows:

73.0)1( tpv L (4-2)

εpv: performance ratio

Table 21: Resulting performance ratios

Source: Own display

Full supply Partial supply

1 < 25°C 0.00 0.00

1A = 25°C and < 28°C 0.00 0.00

1B = 28°C and < 30°C -0.75 -1.50

1C = 30°C -1.25 -2.50

1D = 31°C -1.50 -3.00

1E = 32°C -1.75 -3.50

1F = 33°C -2.00 -4.00

Lt [%]Tariff

For locations with a minimum

average temperature

Performance ratios (ε pv ) for systems for partial supply

Tariff

summer winter annual average

1 0.730 0.730 0.730

1A 0.730 0.730 0.730

1B 0.719 0.730 0.725

1C 0.712 0.730 0.721

1D 0.708 0.730 0.719

1E 0.704 0.730 0.717

1F 0.701 0.730 0.715



36

4.1.2 Cities considered

Resulting from the fact that the general costs of photovoltaic systems depend to a large extent on the solar radiation and due to the fact that a region cannot be associated with a single tariff, four cities were selected for each tariff. Annex 9 shows those 29 cities considered in this study, the tariffs which they belong to and their solar radiation data. Annex 10 shows the regions of the DAC for each city. Again, regarding the average radiation of this cross section of Mexican cities the high values of the data are striking. With an overall annual average of 5.23 kWh/m2/d the radiation is about 60% higher than in Germany with an approximately annual average of 3.2 kWh/m2/d.34 While the variation of the solar radiation over the national territory in Germany is rather small, Mexico shows quite some regional differences. In some cities in the Northeast of Mexico an annual average radiation of up to 6 kWh/m2/d can be measured.35

4.1.3 Socio-economic parameters

Besides radiation there is another parameter independent from the technical characteristics of the photovoltaic system which must be known to be able to calculate the costs of a photovoltaic system: the electricity consumption. So, in the first attempt the costs should be calculated by sizing the photovoltaic systems for model households with a respective typical monthly subdivided annual demand curve for low, medium and high consumption intervals. But regarding the results only a vague conclusion about other households whose consumption curve doesn’t match the curve of the model households would have been possible.

More interesting and valuable would be information about the turning point at which generating electricity by the means of photovoltaic starts to be cost-saving compared to buying the electricity from the grid. It is quite obvious that this turning point – if existent – might lie between the range limits of a tariff. In other words, it can be expected that if a photovoltaic system may ever be cost-saving it becomes so at a consumption volume at which the tariff switches to a higher price. Thus, for the sizing of the photovoltaic systems the electricity amounts of the respective range limits of the tariffs are assumed as the respective consumption levels of the households. Table 22 gives an overview about the assumed volume of consumption per month for each tariff and also shows the range and DAC limits to make clear why the respective volume has been chosen.

34

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaik

35 http://www.conae.gob.mx/wb/CONAE/CONA_1433_irradiacion_en_la_re



37

Table 22: Assumed consumption levels of model households

Source: Own display

As can be seen up from Tariff 1B the range limits differ between winter and summer due to high differences in temperature between the two seasons. The DAC limit for Tariff 1F does only apply during the winter season, so during the summer season there is no DAC. That means during summer the range limit to be regarded is 1,200. In this range the highest prices are paid for the amount of kilowatt-hours exceeding 2,500 kWh. That is why for the highest volume of consumption regarded a consumption of 20% higher than that amount was assumed in order to get a significant result (3,000 kWh). For the sizing and for the cost comparison the consumption volumes of the households are assumed to be fix over the regarded 20 year period. The reason is that the model does not replace any exact calculation and sizing of a photovoltaic system for the individual household. Therefore an assumption of a ceasing or decreasing future consumption would be of no further significance.

Using the radiation data and the assumptions on consumption as well as the performance ratios the photovoltaic systems for the 29 cities were dimensioned in the following. Two cases of system sizing were considered: first, systems supplying the whole amount of electricity demanded by the household (full supply) and afterwards systems supplying only a portion of the demand (partial supply) thereby reducing the household’s consumption of electricity from the grid to a lower consumption range where a lower tariff applies.

Range

(winter/summer)

&

DAC

limits

Tariff [kWh/month] Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140

249 249 249 249 249 249 249 249 249 249 249 249

250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250

150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150

299 299 299 299 299 299 299 299 299 299 299 299

300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300

175/225 175 175 175 175 225 225 225 225 225 225 175 175

399 399 399 399 399 399 399 399 399 399 399 399

400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400

175/300 175 175 175 175 300 300 300 300 300 300 175 175

849 849 849 849 849 849 849 849 849 849 849 849

850 850 850 850 850 850 850 850 850 850 850 850

200/400 200 200 200 200 400 400 400 400 400 400 200 200

999 999 999 999 999 999 999 999 999 999 999 999

1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000

250/750 250 250 250 250 750 750 750 750 750 750 200 200

1,999 1,999 1,999 1,999 1,999 1,999 1,999 1,999 1,999 1,999 1,999 1,999

2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000

250/1,200 250 250 250 250 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 250 250

2,499 2,499 2,499 2,499 2,499 2,499 2,499 2,499 2,499 2,499 2,499 2,499

2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 2,500 2,500

Consumption [kWh]

250

300

400

850

1,000

2,000

2,500

1D

1E

1F

1

1A

1B

1C



38

4.1.4 Sizing of photovoltaic systems for full electricity supply

With regard to the sizing of the grid-connected photovoltaic systems supplying the total electricity consumed by a household it is important to consider that in accordance with the current Mexican regulation the generated electricity has to meet only the consumption over the considered period of one year. It is not necessary to adjust daily and seasonal variations of the electricity generated by the system and the demand of the household to each other. Since the electricity is fed into the grid it is of no importance to the owner of the system at which time the electricity is generated nor which output is made available at a certain point of time. In other words the installed system should simply be sufficient to generate the electricity needed throughout the year by the household.The sizing of the photovoltaic system was performed as shown in the following steps:

1. Calculation of the electricity generated on average per year PfinalPV [kWh/m2/a]:

pvpvfinalpv rP 365 (4-3)

r: radiation [kWh/m2/d]

ηpv: module efficiency

εpv: performance ratio

2. Calculation of required photovoltaic area Apv [m2]:

finalpv

pvP

eA

12 (4-4)

e: average monthly consumption [kWh/month]

3. Calculation of the required installed capacity of the photovoltaic system Pinstall [kWp]:

21000

m

WAP pvpvinstall (4-5)

The installed capacity is a standardized data measuring the output of a photovoltaic module at a radiation of 1000 W/m2. Thus it serves also as a reference value to compare photovoltaic systems. The results of the sizing on the basis of the approach shown above are given in Annex 11. In some regions featuring very high range limits in their respective tariffs the systems result to be bigger than the 10 kW limit set by the Contract for Interconnection of Small Scale Solar Energy Sources if a full supply solution is considered. Nevertheless these systems are regarded here in order to get a complete overview about the costs and their proportion to the grid electricity costs for all regions.



39

4.1.5 Sizing of photovoltaic systems for partial electricity supply

Systems supplying only a part of the electricity being demanded by the household pose the concrete and realistic case of application for grid-connected photovoltaic systems. In Mexico, from the perspective of the household (micro-economic approach), the purpose of a photovoltaic system application supplying a part of the electricity demanded by a household should be to size the system in a way that it reduces the effective electricity price of the tariff. So even if photovoltaic generation costs are not cheaper than the effective price for electricity purchased from the grid, there might still be the chance to save money by achieving a change in the tariff to the customer.

The sizing of such a system is obviously more complex than the sizing of the full supply systems. On the one hand, it has to be clarified what percentage of the electricity consumption of the household should be provided by the photovoltaic system. On the other hand, the individual month must be regarded resulting from the fact that the electricity tariffs refer to the monthly consumption. Referring to the former, the sizing is based on the range and DAC consumption limits of the different tariffs. In other words, the respective range or DAC limits are subtracted from the regarded amount of electricity consumption to determine the amount of electricity to be supplied by the photovoltaic system. Therefore the volume considering the DAC in the sizing of the systems for full electricity supply obviously does not serve at this point. That is why an additional consumption volume is considered which is 20% higher than the DAC limit of the respective tariff (

Table 23). The consumption volumes of Table 22, which were used to consider the DAC in the analysis for systems for full supply (for example 2,000 kWh in Tariff 1E), are also used in the analysis for the systems for partial supply. In their case the respective consumption limit of the consumption range next below the DAC was subtracted.

Table 23: Additional consumption volumes for the analysis of systems for partial supply

Source: Own display

Regarding Table 23 it can be observed that in Tariff 1B to Tariff 1E the consumption volumes differ from winter to summer. This is due to an assumption of a 20% increase in electricity consumption during summer. Because of the individual structure of Tariff 1F it turned out that the chosen consumption volumes were not significant for the consideration of the system of partial supply. In Tariff 1F the highest prices during summer apply for a consumption of more than 1200 kWh per month. In order to analyze a photovoltaic system for partial supply for this tariff this range limit appears to be most crucial what can be easily understood by regarding Annex 2

Monthly consumption volumes [kWh]

Tariff Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

1 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300

1A 360 360 360 360 360 360 360 360 360 360 360 360

1B 480 480 480 480 576 576 576 576 576 576 480 480

1C 970 970 970 970 1,164 1,164 1,164 1,164 1,164 1,164 970 970

1D 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,440 1,440 1,440 1,440 1,440 1,440 1,200 1,200

1E 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,880 2,880 2,880 2,880 2,880 2,880 2,400 2,400

1F 300 300 300 300 1,440 1,440 1,440 1,440 1,440 1,440 300 300



40

which is why an additional consumption volume of 1440 kWh was chosen for the summer period. For the winter period a consumption volume was chosen for which the highest range (“Exceeding”) below the DAC applies. The difference in electricity consumption between summer and winter appears to be quite high in this case in comparison with the other chosen consumption volumes. Nevertheless, studies showed that this difference is quite realistic for households for which Tariff 1F applies.36The sizing of the photovoltaic system was performed as shown by the following steps:

1. Calculation of the required PV area in the different months AmPV [m2]:

pvpv

nmpv

r

eA

30 (4-6)

en: consumption volume of the respective month [kWh]

2. Determination of the final photovoltaic area Apv [m2]:

Apv = Median of the 12 AmPV (4-7)

3. Calculation of the required installed output of the photovoltaic system Pinstall [kWp]:

21000

m

WAP pvpvinstall (4-8)

As the Tariffs 1B to 1F allow higher electricity consumption without price increase (higher range limits) during summer the sizing of the respective photovoltaic systems is based on this period. The sizing of the photovoltaic systems of Tariff 1F is performed a little bit different as for this tariff the DAC does not apply during summer. Nevertheless, the sizing is based on the summer period as this is the more critical period with regard to the focus of the present study. The reason is that the consumption during summer is usually much higher in the respective regions of Tariff 1F whereas the highest range limit applying during summer is 1,200 kWh in contradiction to the DAC limit of 2,500 kWh applying during winter. In other words it is far more likely that the highest summer limit will be crossed by a household than the DAC limit in winter. So, in the case of Tariff 1F 1,200 kWh are subtracted from the monthly consumption of the household in order to determine the amount of electricity to be produced by the photovoltaic system.

36

IIE Boletín – Resultados tecnologicos del sector electrico aplicables al petrolero. 1998.



41

4.2 Photovoltaic systems for industry and services sectors

For the industry and services sectors only the photovoltaic option supplying a portion of the total electricity demand of a company was studied. The option for full supply makes no sense in these sectors as here it is not only the supplied amount of energy which has to be regarded but also the capacity made available by the photovoltaic system. A full supply option in this case would not only be unrealistic from a financial point of view but even more from a technical one as a full supply option would bind all business processes to the weather and the course of the sun.

4.2.1 Performance ratio

For the performance ratio the same value (0.73) was chosen as in the residential sector with the difference that no high temperature efficiency loss was considered. This is due to the different structure of the tariffs for the industry and services sector (hence, no distinction between different climates) and the resulting different approach which considers the same value of radiation for all regions. As the temperature efficiency loss was introduced to consider the impact of high temperatures on the overall performance when comparing photovoltaic systems in different climates, it is of no use in the analysis of the sectors industry and services.

4.2.2 Regions considered

For the tariffs 2 and 3 it was not necessary to distinguish different regions due to their structure. For each tariff from Tariff O-M to HT-L the three most significant regions were regarded. In this context most significant means the regions with the highest, intermediate and lowest tariff. Table 24 shows for each tariff the studied regions

Table 24: Tariffs and studied regions

Source: Own display

As a certain region cannot be associated with a certain radiation value the calculation was performed with general values of radiation for all regions. The first value assumed for the annual average radiation is 6.0 kWh/m2/d which is far above the national annual average radiation based on the idea that if photovoltaic systems do not save cost under the most favourable conditions a further inquiry makes no sense. In the case of being cost-saving an annual average radiation of 5.5 kWh/m2/d is regarded. If for that value systems proof to be cost-saving too, the annual average radiation values of 5.0 and 4.5 kWh/m2/d were regarded. Below the value of 4.5 kWh/m2/d no further values were regarded as this value is already far below the Mexican average radiation based on the idea that private investment should be concentrated on the

Tariff Regions

Baja California

Central

Northeast

H-MC Northeast

Baja California

Central

Peninsula

O-M, H-M,

H-S, H-SL

H-T, H-TL



42

available high amount of areas featuring favourable conditions and should not be used for a few featuring worst conditions.

4.2.3 Socio-economic parameters

As has been said, industrial and service companies feature quite individual electricity consumption characteristics which is why a generalisation is difficult. In order to get significant results thus a low, medium and high consumption volume were regarded for each tariff. The difficulty in the analysis for these sectors is the mentioned demand charge which makes it inevitable to also have a look on the capacity demand. So, the mentioned consumption volumes were connected with a respective low, medium and high demand for capacity. Beyond these three cases also the two cases of a high consumption volume and a low maximum demand in capacity and vice versa were considered in order to clarify, if possible, which one of the two prices has the higher impact. To get an imagination of the average consumption volumes in the different tariffs CFE was asked to provide data on a monthly basis. The considered consumption volumes of Table 25 are based on these data whereas the maximum demands in capacity were assumed due to the scope of each tariff.

Table 25: Considered capacity demand and consumption levels

Source: Own display

For the tariffs H-M to H-TL it is also necessary to define what percentage of the overall electricity is consumed in which interval. Regarding the allocation of the load intervals it can be observed that from Monday to Friday from 6:00 a.m. to at least 7:00 p.m. is an intermediate load interval. It can be expected that the strongest demand for electricity of most companies of the industry and services sectors is during the same period, even more because of the way the charged capacity is calculated (see 3-1). On the other side it can be expected that most companies have a quite low electricity demand during the peak and base load intervals as the peak load interval is only

Capacity demand and consumption

Low Medium High High/low Low/high

2 kWh/month 135 270 540

kW 26 63 100 100 26

kWh/month 2,300 4,600 9,200 2,300 9,200

kW 10 50 99 99 10

kWh/month 2,650 5,300 10,600 2,650 10,600

kW 110 200 300 300 110

kWh/month 38,500 77,000 144,000 38,500 144,000

kW 110 200 300 300 110

kWh/month 30,000 60,000 120,000 30,000 120,000

kW 150 300 600 600 150

kWh/month 855,000 1,710,000 3,420,000 855,000 3,420,000

kW 150 300 600 600 150

kWh/month 1,990,000 3,980,000 7,960,000 1,990,000 7,960,000

kW 250 500 1,000 1,000 250

kWh/month 4,050,000 8,100,000 16,200,000 4,050,000 16,200,000

kW 250 500 1,000 1,000 250

kWh/month 19,500,000 39,000,000 78,000,000 19,500,000 78,000,000H-TL

H-MC

H-S

H-SL

H-T

Tariff

3

O-M

H-M



43

about three hours a day and the base load interval from about 12:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. where most services rest and industrial processes are down. This is why the general division of the assumed electricity consumptions shown in Table 26 was assumed.

Table 26: Division of overall kWh consumption

Source: Own display

4.2.4 Sizing

Unlike in the residential sector here the photovoltaic system cannot have an impact such as a tariff drop (price to customer drop). The possibility of a change in tariff was not considered as it could not be seen if such a change were desirable for a company or not as unlike in the residential sector there is nothing like a steady price increase from Tariff 2 to H-TL. Far from it, the average annual prices of Baja California of Tariff H-T are lower than in Tariff H-S, for example. In general it can be said that a statement which tariff would be more profitable for a business could only be made considering the individual electricity consumption and demand characteristics of a company which is neither possible nor desired in this study. So the study is limited to the analysis of the impact of a photovoltaic system supplying 5% of the total consumption volume of a company. Accordingly, the sizing was performed how described under the steps 1 to 3 of the sizing for the system for full electricity supply.

After the installed capacity of the photovoltaic system is determined, the impact of the output made available by the system on the electricity demand of the company was calculated. This calculation was performed on the generalized assumption that electricity is produced by the photovoltaic cells during twelve hours a day only. This assumption was made with the help of some examples of the course of the radiation measured by the National Meteorological Service (SMN – Servicio Meteorológico Nacional) which are shown in Annex 13. Also on the basis of these courses it was assumed that the ratio between the average peak radiation value of the five hours with the highest radiation and the average medium radiation of the remaining seven hours is about 2.4. Together with the assumed average annual radiation (r) the respective average peak (rp) and medium radiation (rm) values are calculated by the following formulas:

)75(2 mp rrr (4-9)

with

Peak load consumption 15%

Medium load consumption 70%

Base load consumption 15%



44

mp rr 4.2 (4-10)

r: average annual radiation [kWh/m2/d]

rp: average peak radiation [kWh/m2/d]

rm: average medium radiation [kWh/m2/d]

Based on the values for the average peak and medium radiation the capacity of the photovoltaic system during the peak (Pp) and the medium radiation period (Pm) is calculated:

mppvpvpvmp rAP // (4-11)

Pp/m: average peak/medium photovoltaic capacity [kW]


Cost calculation

45

5 Cost calculation

In order to come up with a sound basis for an investment decision regarding a photovoltaic system in Mexico one has to compare the electricity generation costs of a photovoltaic system (Investment Case) with those expenses offset by generating energy with the photovoltaic system, i.e. the tariffs one would have to afford in case of continued consumption from the grid (Reference Case).The problem at this point is that the costs of photovoltaic systems mainly consist of the investment costs which have to be paid at the moment of the acquisition of the system. As photovoltaic systems do not contain any mechanical equipment and therefore feature a low deterioration, annual operation and maintenance costs are quite low. On the other side, the costs for electricity purchased from the grid are variable periodical costs which are claimed in Mexico either every month or every second month. In other words, costs consisting mainly of one-time investment costs need to be compared with periodically emerging costs over time. For this reason an Excel model was prepared as part of the present study offering the possibility to calculate the electricity costs of photovoltaic system and the costs for electricity purchased from the grid on the basis of net present values.

5.1 Tariff costs

For the calculation of the net present values of the tariffs another formula was used as for the operation and maintenance costs of the photovoltaic systems due to the fact that an annual price increase was included in the calculation. Between 1999 to 2006 electricity prices of the residential and industry sector increased by an annual average of 11%. The service sector showed a price increase of 7.5%.37 For the calculation an annual price increase of 8% is assumed for the residential sector and a 7% increase for the industry and services sectors as the intention of the study is to follow a rather conservative point of view.

The following formula was used to calculate the monthly net present value for every year of the regarded 20 year period:38

n

n

i

pgC

)1(

)1(

(5-1)

g: periodical costs, here tariff of the respective month

p: rate of annual price increase

i: discount rate

n: regarded period, for example physical or economic lifetime

37

http://www.sener.gob.mx/webSener/res/PE_y_DT/ee/ 38

Prof. Dr. Voß, A. – Energiesysteme I - Grundlagen der Energiewirtschaft und Energieversorgung, Volume 1. Institut for Energy Economics and Rational Use of Energy (IER


Cost calculation

46

For the cost calculation in the residential sector the calculated net present values of each month are summed up over the 20 year period in the second step. The total tariff costs of one month over the 20 years can now be calculated by multiplying this sum with the consumption of the regarded month. The final total costs are calculated by summing up these results over the twelve months. Table 27 shows an example.

Table 27: Example: tariff net present value costs

Source: Own display

The list containing the calculated net value sums can be found in Annex 14. For the industry and services sectors an average annual price was calculated instead of using the formula for the tariff of every month like for the residential sector. This was possible as in the structure of the tariffs for the industry and services sectors there is no seasonal difference between summer and winter like in the residential tariffs which means that no information is lost by the approach. To calculate the electricity invoice per year the annual average tariff is multiplied by twelve (for twelve months) and taxes are added. In the second step the formula above is used to calculate the net present value for each of the twenty years. Finally, these net present values are summed up and multiplied with the respective regarded annual consumption volume. The average tariff and their final net present value sum for the twenty year period can be found in Annex 15.

5.2 Financial parameters and assumptions

Table 28 shows a summary of all assumed financial parameters used for the cost comparison for the residential sector

Table 28: Financial parameters for the residential sector

Source: Own display

The percentage rate of the annual operation and maintenance costs refers to the investment costs of the photovoltaic system. These costs include, for example, costs for replacing the inverters which have an average life time of ten years, costs for technical support and fault clearance. The value used for “Taxation of profits” reflects the percentage of the investing costs for a photovoltaic system a company can depreciate in line with the “Ley de impuestos sobre la renta” and was determined in accordance with Conuee.

Jan Feb … Nov Dec

Consumption [kWh] a 70.0 70.0 … 70.0 70.0

Net present value sums [$] b 22.1 22.1 … 22.8 22.8

Monthly costs over 20 years [$] a x b 1,547.0 1,547.0 … 1,596.0 1,596.0 18,851

Final tariff

costs as net

present value

[$]

Discount rate 8%

Annual O&M costs of PV system 0.8%

Annual price increase of electricity tariffs 8%

VAT (Mex. IVA) 15%

PV operating time 20a


Cost calculation

47

Table 29 shows the respective assumed financial parameters for the cost comparison of the industry and services sectors.

Table 29: Financial parameters for the industry and services sectors

Source: Own display

5.3 Scenarios

As photovoltaic system prices proved to be quiet unstable in the past and innovations are expected in the next years, three different price scenarios are analyzed by the present study.39 The prices assumed in the first scenario are based on the evaluation of the current market situation in Mexico. Scenario 2 and 3 give an outlook for the coming five years by assuming a decrease in prices of photovoltaic systems. The prices include all the costs for the necessary equipment and the components, the installation, the grid connection and the value added tax. Table 30 gives the prices assumed by the scenarios for the residential sector. For the industry and services sectors the prices are shown in Table 31. These feature decreasing system costs for bigger installations due to economy of scale effects which was also reaffirmed by the questioned dealers.

Table 30: Scenario prices for the residential sector

Source: Own display

39

Trends in Photovoltaic Applications – Survey report of selected IEA countries between 1992 and 2006. International Energy Agency (IEA) – Photovoltaic Power Systems Programme. August 2007. Page 1

Discount rate 8%

Annual O&M costs of PV system 0.5%

Annual price increase of electricity tariffs 7%

VAT (Mex. IVA) 15%

Taxation of profits 28%

PV operating time 20a

PV system costPrice

decrease

[$/kWp] [%]

Scenario 1 103,000

Scenario 2 82,400 -20

Scenario 3 51,500 -50


Cost calculation

48

Table 31: Scenario prices for the industry and services sectors

Source: Own display

As already mentioned above, the prices of Scenario 1 were acquired by a survey of local Mexican dealers and manufacturers. Another subject of this survey were the expectations for the future price development of photovoltaic systems. Scenario 3 is based on these expectations whereas the price reduction of Scenario 2 was assumed to consider a much more conservative development as the nature of the questioned companies suggested that their expectations were biased and thus have to be considered as quite optimistic.

5.4 Photovoltaic system costs

The net present value of the photovoltaic system costs were calculated using the following formula and parameters:

)1(

1)1(

ii

igC

n

(5-2)

g: periodical costs, here operation and maintenance costs

i: discount rate

n: regarded period, for example physical or economic lifetime

The present formula calculates the value at present of a periodically emerging cost at a specific date. The discounted value of the cost is determined by reducing its value by the appropriate discount rate for each unit of time between the time when the cost is to be valued to the time of the emergence of the cost.40

The cost comparison considers a period of 20 years as in a questionnaire dealers quoted a 20 year guarantee and an average operating time of 25 years at an average 80% of the initial efficiency due to efficiency losses at the end of the operating time. The operating time of the

40

Prof. Dr. Voß, A. – Energiesysteme I - Grundlagen der Energiewirtschaft und Energieversorgung, Volume 1. Institute for Energy Economics and Rational Use of Energy (IER).


1 - 50 kWp 101,000 80,800 50,500

50 - 100 kWp 96,500 77,200 48,250

100 - 300 kWp 92,200 73,760 46,100

300 - 500 kWp 90,200 72,160 45,100

Price decrease [%]: -20 -50

PV system costs [$/kWp]


Cost calculation

49

photovoltaic system has been chosen due to the fact that the emerging costs after the expiration of the guarantee are quite unpredictable and that a decrease of efficiency would have been difficult to simulate in the Excel model. Therefore it was calculated with an operating time of 20 years during which the efficiency was assumed to remain at a 100% of the initial efficiency.

The formula above was used for the calculation of the net present value of the annual operation and maintenance costs (O&M) of the photovoltaic system. The net present value of the investment costs is equal to the investment costs as the calculation regards the acquisition of the photovoltaic system at the moment when the costs are valued.

5.4.1 Residential sector - Photovoltaic systems for full electricity supply

The results of the cost calculation of the photovoltaic systems for the 29 cities are shown in Annex 16. Table 32 shows an example of the calculation of the overall costs a household would face.

Table 32: PV Generation cost calculation for residential sector (Full Supply)

Source: Own display

The values contained in the column “Overall PV investment costs” result from multiplying the required installed PV output with the PV system cost per kilowatt peak of Table 30 24. Furthermore, the final entry contains a mark-up of 1.4%. The reason for that is that calculating the potentially electricity which can be produced by one square meter a year (“Average annually generated energy”) by using the yearly average radiation causes a difference from the respective calculation for the systems for partial supply which are calculated on the basis of monthly average radiation data. This causes the generation costs of the systems for full supply to be lower by more or less 1.4%. The adaptation of the overall costs for the systems for full supply was important for the Excel model used to perform the cost comparison as the consideration of the systems for full supply is made in the model to indicate at which point the generation costs of photovoltaic systems turn out to be lower than the tariffs. Without the adaptation a case could occur in which the system of full supply is cost-saving whereas the system for partial supply is not which would be contradictory.

Average

consumption

per month of

PV user

Radiation

Overall PV

investment

costs

Annual

O&M

costs

Net present

value of

O&M costs

CFE minimum

costs for

consumption

of 25 kWh

Overall PV

system costs

as net

present value

PV

Generation

costs

[kWh/month] [kWh/m2/d] [$] [$/a] [$] [$] [$] [$/kWh]

140 5.73 93,181 745 7,319 4,361 106,328 3.69

249 5.73 181,499 1,452 14,256 4,361 202,918 3.69

250 5.73 182,310 1,458 14,320 4,361 203,804 3.69

300 5.73 222,823 1,783 17,502 4,361 248,111 3.69

Durango

City


Cost calculation

50

To make the calculation of the photovoltaic system costs clearer the entries of Table 32 are explained in the following:

The column “Net present value of O&M cost” gives the sum of the net present values of the O&M costs for a 20 year period.

“CFE minimum costs for consumption of 25 kWh” pays respect to the fact that CFE claims a monthly minimum consume of 25 kWh.41 The net present value of this periodically emerging cost is calculated how explained above.

The “Overall PV system costs as net present values” are the sum of the columns “Overall PV investment costs”, “Net present value of O&M costs” and “CFE minimum costs for consumption of 25 kWh”.

The last column shows the generation costs per kWh which are calculated from the “Overall PV system costs as net present value” minus the “CFE minimum costs for consumption of 25 kWh” by dividing it by the “Average consumption per month of PV user” minus 25 kWh (CFE minimum consumption) multiplied by 20 (years) and 12 (months). Formula 5-3 shows the calculation of the generation costs.

)25(1220

min

e

CCc total

g (5-3)

cg: generation costs [$/kWh]

Ctotal: overall PV system costs as net present value [$]

Cmin: CFE minimum costs for consumption of 25 kWh [$]

e: average monthly consumption [kWh]

41

Prof. Dr. Voß, A. – Energiesysteme II – Rationelle Energieanwendung und Energieanlagen. Institute for Energy Economics and Rational Use of Energy (IER). Page 23 –26


Cost calculation

51

The example below shows the calculation as explained above.

City: Durango

Consumption: 140 kWh/month

Required installed output: 0.9 kWp

Overall PV investment costs: 0.9 kWp x 103,000 $/ kWp = 92,700$

O&M costs: 92,700 $ x 0.8% = 741.6 $

Overall PV system costs as net present value: 92,700 $ + 7,319 $ + 4,361 $ = 104,380 $

The slight variation of the example’s result comes from the fact that the required installed output has been rounded up. In the actual calculation this value was not rounded although it can be argued that an output of, for example, 0.905 kWp would never be installed. The calculation of the photovoltaic systems supplying the total amount of electricity consumption is performed in order to calculate the generation costs as well as to observe how the costs of the photovoltaic systems behave towards the costs of the electricity tariffs and to have a common basis on which they can be compared. Obviously, in a realistic case taking into account usual fluctuations in the monthly consumption only a part of the electricity consumption would be supplied by the photovoltaic system. That is also the reason why when calculating the generation costs the “CFE minimum costs for consumption of 25 kWh” are left aside as they do not directly pose actual generation costs.

5.4.2 Residential sector - Photovoltaic systems for partial electricity supply

The photovoltaic system costs and their net present values are calculated in the same way as for the systems for full electricity supply. Regarding the overall costs the difference between the two system designs is that the costs for the portion of electricity purchased from the grid must be calculated for the systems for partial supply. So, in a further step the electricity generation of the already sized photovoltaic system is calculated.

pvpvpv ArE 30 (5-4)

Epv: monthly electricity generation of PV system [kWh]

The produced electricity is than subtracted from the energy consumption of the respective month. For the remaining amount the costs are calculated as net present values how explained above. The calculated costs for the photovoltaic systems for partial electricity supply are shown in Annex 17.


Cost calculation

52

5.4.3 Industry and services sector

Calculating the total costs for a company applying a photovoltaic system the impact on both elements the electricity invoice consists of – electricity consumption and capacity demand – has to be regarded. According to the allocation of intervals in the tariffs for low, medium and high voltage and due to the fact that the most efficient hours of the day of a photovoltaic system for the generation of electricity are in general from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. the generated kilowatt-hours of the photovoltaic system were subtracted from the kilowatt-hours consumed during the intermediate load interval (6:00 am – 8:00 p.m.).42 For the tariffs distinguishing base, intermediate and peak load intervals the entries “Base load consumption”, “Intermediate load consumption” and “Peak load consumption” show the electricity volume generated by the photovoltaic system which has to be subtracted from the respective entry. For the tariffs 2, 3 and O-M there is no such entry. The new grid electricity consumption is the difference between the entries “Consumption without PV” and “Average monthly generated electricity”. Table 33 shows for scenario 3 an example how the costs were calculated.

42

www.enalmex.com/paginas/como.htm


Cost calculation

53

Table 33: Cost calculation for industry and services sectors

Source: Own display

For the capacity demand it was assumed that the company has its peak capacity demand during the intermediate load interval as there is an incentive for the company to avoid their demand peak to be during the peak load interval and due to the intention to take a conservative approach. Furthermore, the intermediate load interval is the longest in time which makes the assumption even more probable. In order to determine the impact of the photovoltaic system on the charged capacity demand (DF) an output of the system has to be determined which can be assumed to be deliverable by the photovoltaic system in average during the time of the demand peak of the company. Obviously, the assumption that the company’s demand peak coincides with the average peak output of the photovoltaic system (Pp) calculated in Formula 4-11 would not be realistic. On the other side it would be too conservative to assume that the photovoltaic system only supplies the calculated medium output (Pm) during the company’s peak capacity demand. That is why an average (Pav) of the average peak output (Pp) and the average medium output (Pp) is calculated.

Charged capacity demand (DF - Demanda facturable) kW 200 120

Consumption without PV kWh/month 77,000 144,000

Overall costs as net present value without PV $ 36,899,461 57,324,644

Installed PV output kWp 28.1 52.6

PV area m2

175.63 328.75

Average monthly generated electricity kWh 3,794 7,101

Impact of PV generated electric work on:

Peak load consumption kWh 0 0

Medium load consumption kWh -3,794 -7,101

Base load consumption kWh 0 0

Impact of PV output:

Average peak radiation (rp) kW/m2

0.379 0.379

Average medium radiation (rm) kW/m2

0.158 0.158

Average peak output (Pp) kW 7.986 14.949

Average medium ouput (Pm) kW 3.328 6.229

Reduction of DF kW -1.697 -3.177

DF with PV kW 198.3 116.8

PV system costs

PV investment costs $ 1,419,050 2,537,950

Annually O&M costs $ 7,095 12,690

Net present value of O&M costs (20a) $ 69,662 124,590

Overall PV system costs as net present value $ 1,488,712 2,662,540

Electricity costs as net present value $ 35,766,973 55,204,756

Depreciation due to "Ley sobre los Impuestos de la renta" $ -397,334 -710,626

Overall costs as net present value with PV $ 36,858,352 57,156,670

Tariff H-M

Central Unit


Cost calculation

54

2

mp

av

PPP

(5-5)

Pav: average photovoltaic output during peak demand of the company [kW]

In the next step of the determination of the photovoltaic system’s impact on the DF the Formula 3-1 CFE applies to calculate the DF, has to be considered. This formula applies a factor called FRI to reduce (note that FRI is always <1) the difference of the maximum capacity demand measured during the peak load interval and the maximum capacity demand measured during the intermediate load interval. As it is assumed that the company’s peak capacity demand is during the intermediate load interval, the FRI factor also reduces the impact of the photovoltaic system on the DF. So the calculated Pav is multiplied with the FRI value of the respective tariffs. The result is the “Reduction of DF” which is the actual reduction of the charged electricity demand of the company due to the impact of the photovoltaic system. Table 34 shows the applied FRI values.

Table 34: Applied FRI values

Source: Own display

Tariffs FRI

H-M, H-MC: 0.3

H-S, H-SL: 0.2

H-T, H-TL: 0.1


Identification and description of market niches via cost comparison

55

6 Identification and description of market niches via cost comparison

In this chapter the overall costs for purchasing the electricity from the grid are compared to the costs of the photovoltaic systems. This leads to the identification of market niches for photovoltaic systems, i.e. the identification in which cities and at which consumption levels the application of a photovoltaic system is associated with a positive net present value. A further important step – above all for potential investors – is the estimation of the total size of these market niches with the ultimate target to come up with an estimation of the overall market potential, both in terms of capacity (MWp) and in financial terms, i.e. sales potential (USD). The estimation of the overall market potential for financially feasible grid-connected PV use in the Mexican household sector (excluding Mexico City due to lacking data) was realised taking the following steps.

Step 1: Compilation of consumption ranges in which PV use results financially feasible, taking the results generated in previous sections for the 28 cities by means of the underlying excel model.

Step 2: Calculation of total consumers/ households falling into these niches using the data provided to Conuee by CFE which provide detailed figures on the number of households falling into different consumption ranges in the 28 cities.

Step 3: Estimation of the potential market size in terms of capacity (MWp) for financially feasible use of grid-connected PV systems in the Mexican household sector.

a) Definition of different consumption groups for each tariff based on the consumption ranges applying for the respective tariffs and calculation of an average consumption value for each consumption group.

b) For each tariff, allocation of average PV capacities to each of these consumption groups by means of the underlying excel model using the partial supply option and based on the results for a city out of the four cities analysed in each tariff with a relatively high solar radiation and assuming the average consumption values. A comparatively high radiation was chosen in order to come up with a conservative estimation since a relatively low radiation would have led to above average PV system capacities.

c) Sum-up of the number of potential households of each consumption range and multiplying them with the with the respective average PV capacities leading to the total capacity which results financially feasible for each of these consumption groups.

d) Sum-up of the amounts of financially feasible capacities of the different consumption groups in order to come up with the total potential market size in MWp regarding the 28 cities that were analysed.

Step 4: Estimation of the potential market size in financial terms by simply multiplying the market potential in MWp with the respective prices that were assumed for the different scenarios

The first part of this chapter is dedicated to the residential sector. In the second part the impact of the photovoltaic systems in the industry and services sectors is shown.



56

6.1 Residential Sector

6.1.1 Scenario 1: Current niches

This scenario is the most important one as it reflects the actual market situation which was the main purpose of the present study. Unlike Scenario 2 and 3 whose prices are based on assumptions the data of Scenario 1 has been verified by a market survey.

Table 35 shows the calculated net present values of the system costs and the tariffs. The columns “Costs as net present value” show the overall costs the household encounters with the photovoltaic systems for full or partial supply. The difference between the system costs and “Tariff electricity costs as net present value” are shown in the respective column “Cost difference” for both system designs. If this difference of the net present values is negative it means that no costs can be saved by a photovoltaic system application compared to purchasing the total electricity from the grid. If one of the two options shows a positive difference the column “Cost saving” displays “yes”.

Regarding the results presented by Table 35 it can be observed that:

The application of photovoltaic systems for full supply is in not cost-saving in any case and for no tariff.

The latter fact means that the generation costs of all photovoltaic systems regarded by the model are never lower than the net present value of the tariff per kilowatt-hour (this term is explained below) paid during the 20 years period. Otherwise the systems for full supply would be cost-saving too.

Mainly in the Tariffs 1 – 1B photovoltaic systems for partial supply for the two highest assumed consumption volumes are cost-saving.



57

Table 35: Scenario 1 - Cost comparison residential sector

Full electricity

supply PV option

Partial electricity supply

PV option

Costs as

net present

value

Cost

difference

Costs as

net present

value

Cost

difference

[kWh/month] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$]

140 36,532 106,328 -69,796 0 No

249 102,792 202,918 -100,126 131,887 -29,095 No

250 175,634 203,804 -28,170 133,133 42,502 Yes

300 207,521 248,111 -40,590 154,405 53,116 Yes

140 36,532 113,983 -77,451 0 No

249 102,792 217,828 -115,036 136,178 -33,386 No

250 178,544 218,781 -40,237 137,240 41,303 Yes

300 211,013 266,416 -55,404 189,313 21,700 Yes

140 36,532 109,070 -72,538 0 No

249 102,792 208,258 -105,466 136,015 -33,223 No

250 175,634 209,168 -33,534 137,076 38,558 Yes

300 207,521 254,668 -47,146 174,845 32,677 Yes

140 36,532 110,981 -74,449 0 No

249 102,792 211,982 -109,189 133,407 -30,615 No

250 178,544 212,908 -34,364 134,460 44,083 Yes

300 211,013 259,238 -48,226 187,957 23,056 Yes

140 36,532 123,284 -86,752 0 No

249 102,792 235,944 -133,152 146,077 -43,285 No

250 191,320 236,978 -45,658 147,183 44,137 Yes

300 226,345 288,657 -62,312 193,381 32,964 Yes

150 34,640 142,753 -108,113 0 No

299 125,215 307,977 -182,762 201,685 -76,469 No

300 211,013 309,086 -98,074 202,830 8,182 Yes

360 249,976 375,620 -125,644 232,992 16,984 Yes

150 34,640 136,027 -101,387 0 No

299 125,215 293,233 -168,018 192,204 -66,989 No

300 207,521 294,288 -86,767 193,320 14,202 Yes

360 245,786 357,593 -111,807 222,645 23,142 Yes

150 34,622 130,298 -95,676 0 No

299 125,198 280,677 -155,479 186,097 -60,899 No

300 207,521 281,686 -74,164 187,231 20,290 Yes

360 245,786 342,241 -96,455 218,410 27,376 Yes

150 34,640 129,715 -95,076 0 No

299 125,215 279,399 -154,184 185,360 -60,145 No

300 211,013 280,403 -69,391 186,473 24,540 Yes

360 249,976 340,679 -90,703 226,682 23,294 Yes

Puebla

1A

Cuautla

Tepic

Nogales

Los Tuxtlas

Oaxaca

Distrito

Federal

1

Durango

Guadalajara

Cost

savingTariff City

Consumption

Tariff

electricity

costs as net

present value



58

Full electricity

supply PV option


PV option

Costs as

net present

value

Cost

difference

Costs as

net present

value

Cost

difference

[kWh/month] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$]

200 50,598 155,327 -104,730 0 No

399 171,520 327,247 -155,727 212,832 -41,313 No

400 273,642 328,110 -54,469 213,841 59,801 Yes

528 356,683 438,692 -82,009 323,479 33,204 Yes

200 50,584 173,718 -123,134 0 No

399 171,554 366,550 -194,996 231,550 -59,996 No

400 275,951 367,519 -91,568 232,595 43,356 Yes

528 359,098 491,552 -132,453 343,628 15,471 Yes

200 50,584 187,695 -137,111 0 No

399 171,554 396,420 -224,866 231,726 -60,172 No

400 272,492 397,469 -124,977 232,847 39,645 Yes

528 354,391 531,725 -177,334 334,946 19,445 Yes

200 50,584 171,237 -120,653 0 No

399 171,554 361,247 -189,693 221,412 -49,858 No

400 275,951 362,202 -86,251 222,474 53,477 Yes

528 359,098 484,419 -125,321 325,745 33,354 Yes

238 53,492 221,972 -168,480 0 No

849 396,572 848,812 -452,240 618,226 -221,654 No

850 548,721 849,837 -301,116 619,344 -70,623 No

1,067 684,343 1,072,280 -387,938 693,694 -9,352 No

238 53,492 254,626 -201,134 0 No

849 396,572 975,432 -578,860 686,613 -290,041 No

850 558,281 976,610 -418,330 687,787 -129,507 No

1,067 697,434 1,232,399 -534,965 738,679 -41,245 No

238 53,465 245,400 -191,936 0 No

849 396,748 939,657 -542,909 714,482 -317,734 No

850 558,281 940,792 -382,511 715,629 -157,349 No

1,067 696,729 1,187,159 -490,430 731,646 -34,917 No

238 53,465 236,830 -183,365 0 No

849 396,748 906,423 -509,676 653,686 -256,938 No

850 568,173 907,518 -339,345 654,823 -86,650 No

1,067 709,142 1,145,134 -435,991 701,107 8,035 Yes

1B

Chihuahua

Acapulco

Poza Rica

Riviera Maya

1C

Cd. Juárez

Monterrey

Tampico

Mérida

Cost

savingTariff City

Consumption

Tariff

electricity

costs as net

present value



59

Full electricity

supply PV option


PV option

Costs as

net present

value

Cost

difference

Costs as

net present

value

Cost

difference

[kWh/month] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$]

300 67,582 292,706 -225,123 0 No

999 454,271 1,026,182 -571,910 760,889 -306,618 No

1,000 671,468 1,027,231 -355,763 761,983 -90,515 No

1,320 882,121 1,363,014 -480,893 925,839 -43,719 No

300 67,582 250,824 -183,242 0 No

999 454,271 877,845 -423,574 651,796 -197,525 No

1,000 681,105 878,742 -197,637 652,201 28,904 Yes

1,320 904,223 1,165,790 -261,567 872,960 31,262 Yes

300 67,582 276,128 -208,546 0 No

999 454,271 967,466 -513,195 663,358 -209,087 No

1,000 653,942 968,455 -314,513 664,468 -10,526 No

1,320 858,964 1,284,948 -425,984 853,596 5,368 Yes

300 67,527 257,782 -190,255 0 No

999 454,520 902,487 -447,968 676,727 -222,208 No

1,000 665,580 903,410 -237,830 677,133 -11,553 No

1,320 873,449 1,198,554 -325,105 862,059 11,390 Yes

500 104,137 508,608 -404,472 0 No

1,999 984,503 2,101,773 -1,117,270 1,551,667 -567,164 No

2,000 1,326,738 2,102,836 -776,098 1,552,787 -226,048 No

2,640 1,748,043 2,783,040 -1,034,997 1,884,393 -136,350 No

500 104,137 409,170 -305,034 0 No

1999 984,503 1,688,530 -704,027 1,332,252 -347,748 No

2,000 1,326,738 1,689,384 -362,646 1,333,253 -6,515 No

2,640 1,748,043 2,235,608 -487,565 1,726,291 21,752 Yes

500 104,137 543,709 -439,572 0 No

1,999 984,503 2,247,645 -1,263,141 1,542,235 -557,732 No

2,000 1,291,686 2,248,781 -957,095 1,543,398 -251,712 No

2,640 1,701,730 2,976,279 -1,274,549 1,838,492 -136,762 No

500 104,137 544,801 -440,664 0 No

1999 984,503 2,252,182 -1,267,678 1,590,904 -606,401 No

2,000 1,291,686 2,253,321 -961,635 1,592,072 -300,385 No

2,640 1,701,730 2,982,289 -1,280,559 1,896,838 -195,108 No

1D

Mazatlán

La Paz

Matamoros

Cd. Altamirano

1E

Culiacán

Guaymas

Reynosa

Piedras

Negras

Cost

savingTariff City

Consumption

Tariff

electricity

costs as net

present value



60

Source: Own display

If the generation costs of the photovoltaic systems are always higher than the tariff the question occurs:

Why are systems for partial supply cost-saving in some cases?

To give an accurate answer some more specific data has to be regarded. The first one are the generation costs of the photovoltaic system which are calculated by dividing the overall cost as net present value for the system by the amount of electricity generated by it throughout the 20 years. Figure 9 gives an overview about the generation costs in dependence on the solar radiation. As can be seen the generation costs differ from about 3.56 up to 4.92 $/kWh. Different generation costs for equal values of solar radiation as can be observed in Figure 9 result from differences in high temperature efficiency losses (Lt).

Full electricity

supply PV option


PV option

Costs as

net present

value

Cost

difference

Costs as

net present

value

Cost

difference

[kWh/month] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$]

725 150,215 661,625 -511,411 0 No

2,499 1,080,370 2,328,820 -1,248,450 1,612,093 -531,723 No

2,750 1,243,435 2,564,709 -1,321,273 1,917,148 -673,712 No

870 211,323 797,896 -586,572 313,467 -102,144 No

725 150,215 714,065 -563,850 0 No

2499 1,080,370 2,514,156 -1,433,785 1,648,057 -567,686 No

2,750 1,329,110 2,768,847 -1,439,737 1,966,941 -637,831 No

870 211,323 861,197 -649,874 314,881 -103,558 No

725 150,215 661,426 -511,212 0 No

2,499 1,080,370 2,328,117 -1,247,747 1,596,660 -516,290 No

2,750 1,329,110 2,563,934 -1,234,824 1,873,307 -544,197 No

870 211,323 797,655 -586,332 309,707 -98,384 No

725 150,215 605,212 -454,997 0 No

2499 1,080,370 2,129,438 -1,049,068 1,536,346 -455,976 No

2,750 1,329,110 2,345,098 -1,015,988 1,812,457 -483,347 No

870 211,323 729,796 -518,473 298,479 -87,156 No

1F

Mexicali

San Luis Rio

Colorado

Cd. Obregón

Hermosillo

Cost

savingTariff City

Consumption

Tariff

electricity

costs as net

present value



61

Figure 9: Scenario 1 - PV Generation costs residential sector

Source: Own display

The second one is the average tariff costs with photovoltaic system paid per kilowatt-hour for the electricity portion purchased from the grid applying a photovoltaic system for partial electricity supply. They are calculated in the same way as the generation costs of the photovoltaic system although their expressiveness is different from them. In contradiction to the generation costs of the photovoltaic system the real annual tariff to customer is not fix because of the assumed annual price increase. Nevertheless, here the fictional average tariff cost per kilowatt-hour which is paid yearly throughout the 20 years is calculated by dividing the calculated overall costs for electricity from the grid by the amount of electricity bought by it. Further, the same value is calculated for the reference case (no PV system) which will be called average tariff cost without PV. The specific data for the 29 cities and their systems are shown in Annex 18.

Consistency of the niches

By regarding the specific data it can be observed that the photovoltaic systems are cost-saving in the respective cases because the average overall cost for a kilowatt-hour of electricity is lower than the average tariff cost without PV. The average overall cost for a kilowatt-hour of electricity of the photovoltaic system is calculated as follows:

)1( pvpvpvgo atacc

co: average overall costs per kilowatt-hour [$/kWh]

apv: PV portion on electricity supply

tpv: average tariff paid for electricity from the grid with PV system [$/kWh]

Thus, although the generation costs of the photovoltaic systems are higher than the average tariff cost without PV, a system for partial electricity supply can be cost-saving by reducing the

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50

Radiation [kWh/m2d]

PV

ge

ne

ratio

n c

osts

[$

/kW

h]



62

demand of electricity from the grid making a lower consumption range apply (and thus a lower tariff (price to customer)). As can be seen, this effect only appears for a certain level of radiation and until the photovoltaic system reaches a certain size. If the photovoltaic system’s percentage at the total electricity supply reaches a critical point increasing investment costs offset the impact of the tariff drop. This effect is strengthened by the fact that the DAC price paid per kilowatt-hour is decreasing with higher consumption volumes because of a fix cost included in the DAC which is independent from the consumption level itself. From this follows that the higher a consumption volume of a household is above the DAC limit, the cheaper the kilowatt-hour of electricity and the bigger might have to be the photovoltaic system (higher PV portion) to cause a tariff drop, thus the possibility of a cost-saving effect is descending fast.

Special features of the results

What can further be observed in Table 35 is that the cost-saving effect in the cities of Tariff 1B for the second highest assumed consumption volume (400 kWh/month) is higher than for 528 kWh monthly whereas for all other tariffs it is the other way round. The reason for this is the way how the systems have been sized and due to the regarded consumption levels. As can be seen in Annex 18 the photovoltaic portion of the total electricity demand of the systems of the highest regarded consumption volume is much higher in Tariff 1B to Tariff 1F compared with the portions of Tariff 1 to 1A. This is because the systems of the former are sized regarding the summer months only for which an additional 20% consumption rise was assumed. So, starting at Tariff 1B the systems for the highest consumption volumes are getting bigger as they have to provide more electricity. Starting from Tariff 1B the range limits for summer are also becoming higher which causes the sizes of the photovoltaic systems for the other two consumption volumes of these tariffs to rise as well. As the increase in range limit of Tariff 1B is not so high yet the system sizes for the three different regarded consumption volumes in this tariff are quite equal (see Annex 12). On the other side the tariff drop is much higher in the second highest regarded consumption volume as here the price drops from the DAC to the prices of the lowest consumption range (> 225 kWh/month) of Tariff 1B which causes this system to be more cost-saving.

This explains also why in Tariff 1C to 1E the systems for the second highest regarded consumption volume are not cost-saving but in the case of the city of La Paz (due to its very high radiation). As has been said before, the rising range limits causes the systems for the second highest consumption volumes to rise in size in to order to be able to cause a tariff drop. An increase of the systems portion at the electricity demand offsets the effect of the tariff drop. One could wonder that this only happens because the study only regards the highest end of the consumption ranges as consumption volumes so if the regarded consumption volume were lower, the portion of the photovoltaic system would be smaller and thus it could be cost-saving. Here it must be said that the price drop would also be lower which obviously eases the impact on the photovoltaic system thus there can be a cost-saving effect of such a system but only for a consumption volume very close to the lower end of the consumption range. The issue is made clearer by the example showed below. The example makes clear that these “niches” are of no real relevance even more as Guaymas is a city featuring excellent conditions for the application of photovoltaic systems.



63

Tariff 1E (consumption range limit, summer: 750 kWh/month)

City: Guaymas

Considered average consumptions: 1) 760 kWh/month

2) 765 kWh/month

1. Result: Cost-saving for 760 kWh/month; Cost-saving effect in 20 years period: 128 $

2. Result: Not cost-saving for 765 kWh/month

Regarding the results for Tariff 1C of Table 35 it seems to be confusing that the system for 1067 kWh/month in Mérida saves costs whereas in Juárez not although the latter features a higher solar radiation and a lower DAC (see Annex 1). The reason is that due to the way how the systems have been sized and due to the course of the radiation of the two cities the household with the photovoltaic system in Juárez has to buy a little bit more of electricity from the grid during winter than the one in Mérida. As the electricity prices are higher during winter the average cost per kilowatt-hour with PV is higher in Juárez than in Mérida.

Although the cities regarded in Tariff 1F feature very high solar radiations and thus very low photovoltaic generation costs none of the considered systems is cost-saving. This is due to what has been said before about Tariff 1F. Resulting from the fact that the DAC only applies during winter for this tariff the average tariff costs without PV per kilowatt-hour are lower than in all other tariffs (see Annex 18). Photovoltaic systems are thus under no circumstances cost-saving.

Learnings and conclusion

General learnings:

From what has been said so far it is clear that the generation costs of a photovoltaic system first mainly depend on the radiation and on its course over the year.

Furthermore, the location due to the efficiency loss factor applied in the model also has an impact.

If a system for partial supply is cost-saving or not depends on the applying tariff and the regarded consumption. Obviously the results depend to a certain extent on the way the photovoltaic systems were calculated and sized.

Identified market niches:

Because of all the broad variety of variables influencing in the cost analysis it is difficult to make a specific statement in which case PV systems are cost-saving. Rather each case must be considered individually which is why the model providing all the data this study is based on offers a tool providing the possibility to analyse your specific case if the use of a photovoltaic system would be cost-saving or not (www.conuee.gob.mx).

In general it can be said that at present generation costs of photovoltaic systems for the residential sector are still much higher than the tariffs applying for electricity purchased from the grid in Mexico.

http://www.conuee.gob.mx/



64

Nevertheless, there exist some niches for a cost-saving application of photovoltaic systems in the consumption range of the DAC. Households featuring a consumption slightly above the DAC limit pose the most promising case for a photovoltaic application in this scenario. These niches in general exist in all tariffs but 1F and for regions featuring a radiation of about the national average and higher.

Size of market niches:

Out of the universe of the 29 cities analysed, for DAC consumers in the following cities PV use should be cost-saving:

Table 36: Market niches by city in the residential sector (micro-approach)

Source: Own display

DAC below DAC DAC below DAC DAC below DAC

Durango X X X X X

Oaxaca X X X X X


Puebla X X X X X

Distrito Federal X X X X X

Cuautla X X X X

Tepic X X X X X

Nogales X X X X X


Chihuahua X X X X X

Acapulco X X X X X

Poza Rica X X X X X


Cd. Juárez X X X

Monterrey X X X

Tampico X X X

Mérida X X X X

Mazatlán X X X

La Paz X X X X X

Matamoros X X X X X


Culiacán X X X

Guaymas X X X X X

Reynosa X X X


Mexicali X X


Cd. Obregón X X

Hermosillo X X

Tariff 1F

Tariff 1E

Tariff 1D

Tariff 1C

Scenario 3

Tariff 1B

Tariff 1A

Tariff 1

Scenario 1 Scenario 2



65

The niche described in this scenario is quite limited and applies only to about 2% of the 28 households analysed (the Distrito Federal is not included). These results as well as the results for scenario 2 and 3 are shown in Table 37.


Source: Own display

Potential


Range of

PV size



2 Chihuahua 9 14,941 67

3 Puebla 7 10,993 49

4 Poza Rica 6 9,994 45

5 Acapulco 5 7,713 35

54 89,622 403

Total 28 Cities 81 133,499 608

2%

1 Guadalajara 174 388,224 1,302 0.1 - 1.3

2 Cuautla 52 73,297 392 0.6 - 1.9

3 Chihuahua 50 60,298 376 0.1 - 2.9

4 Nogales 44 47,799 332 0.6 - 1.9

5 Puebla 41 89,854 306 0.1 - 1.3

362 659,471 2,708

Total 28 Cities 693 956,629 5,190

17%

1 Guadalajara 174 388,224 814 0.1 - 1.3

2 Mexicali 141 44,606 659 0.2 - 15.5

3 Monterrey 124 110,034 581 0.1 - 3.7

4 Cd. Juarez 88 86,143 413 0.1 - 3.7

5 Tampico 66 55,366 307 0.1 - 3.7

593 684,372 2,774

Total 28 Cities 1,336 1,486,362 6,255

27%

Scenario 3

"Optimistic


Scenario 1

"Current


Scenario 2

"Conservative


Scenario "Top 5"



66

6.1.2 Scenario 2: Conservative outlook

This scenario serves as a conservative outlook on the development of the generation costs in the coming five to six years. It considers a decrease of 20% of photovoltaic system prices and thus is more conservative than the expectations quoted by photovoltaic producers for that period. Table 38 shows the calculated net present values of the system costs and the tariffs and the differences between them. Annex 19 provides the key data for this scenario.


In Scenario 2 photovoltaic systems for full electricity supply turn out to be cost-saving in all cities for the DAC consumption range, but Mexicali, San Luis Rio Colorado and Cd. Obregón, which means that the net present value of their generation costs are lower than the respective average tariff costs without PV per kilowatt-hour. For very high radiations, for example Guaymas, this even happens in the consumption range of the tariff next below the DAC limit. According to this fact, the cost difference relative to the radiation increases following the tariffs from 1 to 1E as the regarded consumption volumes increase and thus the saving effect. This happens although it can be observed that the average DAC price paid per kilowatt-hour throughout the 20 year period is lower (see Annex 19) in Tariff 1B to 1F than in Tariff 1 and 1A due to the assumed 20% increase of consumption during the summer period for the former tariffs. For radiations of about the Mexican average and higher systems for partial supply are even cost-saving in the consumption range next below the DAC. In general it can be recorded that systems for partial supply for the second highest considered consumption volume save the highest amount of costs as the reduction of the tariff (price to customer) is strongest in this range.



67


Full electricity

supply PV option


PV option

Costs as

net present

value

Cost

difference

Costs as

net present

value

Cost

difference

[kWh/month] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$]

140 53,678 88,022 -34,345 0 No

249 151,035 165,294 -14,259 127,608 23,427 Yes

250 258,064 166,003 92,061 129,439 128,626 Yes

300 304,917 201,448 103,469 183,002 121,915 Yes

140 53,678 94,146 -40,469 0 No

249 151,035 177,222 -26,187 131,683 19,352 Yes

250 262,339 177,984 84,355 132,500 129,839 Yes

300 310,047 216,093 93,954 246,934 63,113 Yes

140 53,678 90,216 -36,538 0 No

249 151,035 169,566 -18,531 129,957 21,079 Yes

250 258,064 170,294 87,770 130,772 127,293 Yes

300 304,917 206,694 98,223 224,188 80,729 Yes

140 53,678 91,745 -38,067 0 No

249 151,035 172,545 -21,510 129,842 21,193 Yes

250 262,339 173,286 89,053 130,646 131,693 Yes

300 310,047 210,350 99,697 245,684 64,363 Yes

140 53,678 101,587 -47,909 0 No

249 151,035 191,715 -40,680 138,793 12,243 Yes

250 281,112 192,542 88,570 139,674 141,439 Yes

300 332,574 233,885 98,689 249,193 83,382 Yes

150 50,897 116,975 -66,078 0 No

299 183,982 249,154 -65,172 187,038 -3,056 No

300 310,047 250,041 60,006 187,978 122,069 Yes

360 367,296 303,268 64,028 298,472 68,825 Yes

150 50,897 111,594 -60,697 0 No

299 183,982 237,359 -53,377 176,826 7,156 Yes

300 304,917 238,203 66,714 177,721 127,196 Yes

360 361,140 288,847 72,294 284,012 77,129 Yes

150 50,872 107,011 -56,139 0 No

299 183,957 227,314 -43,357 176,031 7,926 Yes

300 304,917 228,121 76,796 176,954 127,963 Yes

360 361,140 276,565 84,575 281,507 79,633 Yes

150 50,897 106,545 -55,648 0 No

299 183,982 226,291 -42,309 174,949 9,033 Yes

300 310,047 227,095 82,952 175,840 134,207 Yes

360 367,296 275,315 91,981 293,661 73,635 Yes

Puebla

1A

Cuautla

Tepic

Nogales

Los Tuxtlas

Oaxaca

Distrito

Federal

1

Durango

Guadalajara

Cost

savingTariff City

Consumption

Tariff

electricity

costs as net

present value



68

Full electricity

supply PV option


PV option

Costs as

net present

value

Cost

difference

Costs as

net present

value

Cost

difference

[kWh/month] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$]

200 74,345 127,034 -52,690 0 No

399 252,018 264,570 -12,551 219,776 32,243 Yes

400 402,070 265,261 136,809 220,514 181,555 Yes

528 524,084 353,726 170,358 381,608 142,476 Yes

200 74,324 141,747 -67,422 0 No

399 252,069 296,012 -43,943 227,945 24,124 Yes

400 405,463 296,787 108,675 228,737 176,725 Yes

528 527,633 396,014 131,620 391,138 136,496 Yes

200 74,324 152,928 -78,604 0 No

399 252,069 319,908 -67,839 238,615 13,454 Yes

400 400,380 320,747 79,632 239,517 160,863 Yes

528 520,717 428,152 92,565 388,791 131,925 Yes

200 74,324 139,762 -65,437 0 No

399 252,069 291,770 -39,701 226,433 25,636 Yes

400 405,463 292,534 112,929 227,251 178,212 Yes

528 527,633 390,308 137,325 378,246 149,388 Yes

238 78,598 180,350 -101,753 0 No

849 582,694 681,822 -99,128 587,903 -5,210 No

850 806,251 682,642 123,609 588,803 217,448 Yes

1,067 1,005,524 860,597 144,927 835,606 169,918 Yes

238 78,598 206,473 -127,876 0 No

849 582,694 783,118 -200,424 643,773 -61,079 No

850 820,297 784,061 36,237 644,755 175,543 Yes

1,067 1,024,759 988,691 36,068 876,422 148,337 Yes

238 78,557 199,093 -120,535 0 No

849 582,952 754,498 -171,545 659,441 -76,488 No

850 820,297 755,406 64,891 660,383 159,915 Yes

1,067 1,023,724 952,500 71,224 851,217 172,506 Yes

238 78,557 192,236 -113,679 0 No

849 582,952 727,911 -144,959 612,494 -29,542 No

850 834,832 728,787 106,045 613,421 221,411 Yes

1,067 1,041,963 918,879 123,083 830,883 211,080 Yes

1B

Chihuahua

Acapulco

Poza Rica

Riviera Maya

1C

Cd. Juárez

Monterrey

Tampico

Mérida

Cost

savingTariff City

Consumption

Tariff

electricity

costs as net

present value



69

Full electricity

supply PV option


PV option

Costs as

net present

value

Cost

difference

Costs as

net present

value

Cost

difference

[kWh/month] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$]

300 99,300 236,937 -137,637 0 No

999 667,473 823,718 -156,244 694,168 -26,695 No

1,000 986,607 824,557 162,050 695,032 291,575 Yes

1,320 1,296,125 1,093,183 202,941 1,048,811 247,314 Yes

300 99,300 203,432 -104,131 0 No

999 667,473 705,048 -37,575 621,614 45,859 Yes

1,000 1,000,767 705,766 295,001 622,210 378,557 Yes

1,320 1,328,600 935,404 393,195 1,035,804 292,796 Yes

300 99,300 223,675 -124,374 0 No

999 667,473 776,745 -109,272 661,653 5,820 Yes

1,000 960,856 777,537 183,319 662,540 298,315 Yes

1,320 1,262,100 1,030,731 231,370 1,023,710 238,391 Yes

300 99,219 208,998 -109,779 0 No

999 667,838 724,762 -56,924 635,196 32,642 Yes

1,000 977,956 725,500 252,455 635,793 342,163 Yes

1,320 1,283,383 961,616 321,767 1,002,685 280,698 Yes

500 153,011 409,410 -256,399 0 No

1,999 1,446,558 1,683,942 -237,383 1,450,098 -3,540 No

2,000 1,949,414 1,684,792 264,622 1,450,999 498,415 Yes

2,640 2,568,449 2,228,955 339,494 2,184,355 384,094 Yes

500 153,011 329,859 -176,849 0 No

1999 1,446,558 1,353,347 93,211 1,236,264 210,295 Yes

2,000 1,949,414 1,354,030 595,384 1,236,992 712,422 Yes

2,640 2,568,449 1,791,009 777,439 2,027,894 540,555 Yes

500 153,011 437,490 -284,479 0 No

1,999 1,446,558 1,800,639 -354,080 1,494,980 -48,422 No

2,000 1,897,911 1,801,548 96,363 1,495,946 401,965 Yes

2,640 2,500,400 2,383,546 116,854 2,157,807 342,593 Yes

500 153,011 438,364 -285,353 0 No

1999 1,446,558 1,804,268 -357,710 1,522,621 -76,062 No

2,000 1,897,911 1,805,180 92,731 1,523,593 374,318 Yes

2,640 2,500,400 2,388,355 112,045 2,213,051 287,349 Yes

1D

Mazatlán

La Paz

Matamoros

Cd. Altamirano

1E

Culiacán

Guaymas

Reynosa

Piedras

Negras

Cost

savingTariff City

Consumption

Tariff

electricity

costs as net

present value



70

Source: Own display

Full electricity

supply PV option


PV option

Costs as

net present

value

Cost

difference

Costs as

net present

value

Cost

difference

[kWh/month] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$]

725 220,715 531,823 -311,109 0 No

2,499 1,587,419 1,865,579 -278,161 1,643,725 -56,306 No

2,750 1,827,014 2,054,290 -227,276 1,812,372 14,642 Yes

870 310,503 640,839 -330,336 326,003 -15,499 No

725 220,715 573,775 -353,060 0 No

2499 1,587,419 2,013,848 -426,429 1,709,952 -122,533 No

2,750 1,952,899 2,217,601 -264,702 1,904,124 48,775 Yes

870 310,503 691,481 -380,978 331,054 -20,551 No

725 220,715 531,664 -310,949 0 No

2,499 1,587,419 1,865,017 -277,598 1,641,868 -54,450 No

2,750 1,952,899 2,053,670 -100,771 1,802,980 149,919 Yes

870 310,503 640,647 -330,144 327,913 -17,410 No

725 220,715 486,692 -265,978 0 No

2499 1,587,419 1,706,074 -118,655 1,581,502 5,916 Yes

2,750 1,952,899 1,878,602 74,297 1,726,211 226,688 Yes

870 310,503 586,360 -275,857 313,646 -3,143 No

1F

Mexicali

San Luis Rio

Colorado

Cd. Obregón

Hermosillo

Cost

savingTariff City

Consumption

Tariff

electricity

costs as net

present value



71

The PV generation costs are shown in Figure 10. As can be seen the PV generation costs of this scenario range from 2.85 up to 3.94 $/kWh. The former represents the generation cost of Guaymas and is 30% lower than the respective average tariff cost without PV per kilowatt-hour.


Source: Own display


General learnings:

The scenario shows that it is quite probable that in about five years the generation costs per kilowatt-hour of photovoltaic systems can be lower for consumption levels close to the DAC limits (below or above) than the tariff costs without PV per kilowatt-hour.

As a result significant market and cost-saving opportunities for PV applications for a range of different consumption levels exist.

Furthermore, from a financial point of view the most attractive niche exists for households featuring a consumption volume above the DAC limit.

The fact that no DAC applies during summer in Tariff 1F poses a barrier to the application of photovoltaic in some of Mexico’s sun riches regions.


The second scenario shows that nearly for all households paying the DAC both photovoltaic options are cost-saving. That systems save costs supplying the total electricity demand of a household shows that the average generation costs per kilowatt-hour over the 20 years period of the systems are lower than the average DAC paid over the same period in this scenario.

In the consumption range of the DAC photovoltaic systems are cost-saving in all tariffs but 1F.

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50

Radiation [kWh/m2d]

PV

ge

ne

ratio

n c

osts

[$

/kW

h]



72

In all tariffs but 1F it is possible to save costs in the consumption range next below the DAC depending on the radiation and the substructure of the respective tariff due to the effect of a drop from the highest tariff to a lower one, as has been explained above. For radiations above 5 kWh/m2/d photovoltaic options save costs against the tariff of the consumption range next below the DAC. The only exception is Tariff 1F as no DAC applies for it during summer.

For Tariff 1F photovoltaic applications can only save costs by a tariff drop for the highest considered consumption volumes.


Out of the universe of the 29 cities analysed, the mentioned niches exist in the cities shown in Table 36.

The size of the niches of this scenario is about 17% of the analysed household and is shown in Table 37.



73

6.1.3 Scenario 3: Optimistic outlook

The price assumption of this scenario is based on the expectations for the next five to seven years quoted by dealers and manufacturers and should be regarded as quite optimistic. The assumption is a decrease of 50% in photovoltaic system prices. The expected price reduction was justified by dealers and manufacturers with the envisaged elimination of four currently existing bottlenecks in the supply chain for photovoltaic modules over the next five years. Bottlenecks currently exist for the availability of silicon and cells, the encapsulation of cells, plastic films and for glass.

Table 39 shows the calculated net present values of the system costs and the tariffs and the differences between them. The key data for his scenario can be found in Annex 20.


The table shows that in Scenario 3 in Tariff 1 to 1E the generation costs of the systems are even lower than the average tariff costs without PV in the consumption range below the DAC. This can be seen due to the fact that the full supply option in these cases is cost-saving against the tariffs. But still in Tariff 1F the fact that no DAC exist during summer shows its impact. In this tariff the generation costs are below the average tariff costs without PV of the DAC but they are still higher than the average tariff costs without PV of the consumption range next below the DAC. The lowest generation costs features the city of Guaymas. They are about 41% lower than the average tariff cost without PV of the highest consumption range of the Tariff 1E (see Annex 20). So, in this city for the full supply option in the DAC consumption range the net present value of the photovoltaic system costs would be about 1,122,000 $ including operation and maintenance costs (O&M) whereas the cost-saving effect would be a net present value of about 1,446,000 $ (see Table 39).



74


Full electricity

supply PV option


PV option

Costs as

net present

value

Cost

difference

Costs as

net present

value

Cost

difference

[kWh/month] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$]

140 53,678 57,450 -3,773 0 No

249 151,035 105,745 45,290 97,947 53,088 Yes

250 258,064 106,188 151,876 99,778 158,287 Yes

300 304,917 128,342 176,575 163,339 141,578 Yes

140 53,678 61,278 -7,600 0 No

249 151,035 113,200 37,835 101,022 50,013 Yes

250 262,339 113,677 148,663 101,506 160,833 Yes

300 310,047 137,494 172,553 232,937 77,111 Yes

140 53,678 58,821 -5,144 0 No

249 151,035 108,415 42,620 98,629 52,406 Yes

250 258,064 108,870 149,194 99,111 158,953 Yes

300 304,917 131,620 173,297 209,524 95,393 Yes

140 53,678 59,777 -6,099 0 No

249 151,035 110,277 40,758 100,181 50,854 Yes

250 262,339 110,740 151,599 100,652 161,687 Yes

300 310,047 133,905 176,142 232,020 78,027 Yes

140 53,678 65,928 -12,251 0 No

249 151,035 122,258 28,777 104,799 46,236 Yes

250 281,112 122,775 158,337 105,347 175,765 Yes

300 332,574 148,615 183,960 233,529 99,045 Yes

150 50,897 75,391 -24,494 0 No

299 183,982 158,004 25,979 138,047 45,935 Yes

300 310,047 158,558 151,489 138,654 171,393 Yes

360 367,296 191,825 175,472 278,809 88,488 Yes

150 50,897 72,028 -21,131 0 No

299 183,982 150,632 33,351 129,502 54,481 Yes

300 304,917 151,159 153,758 130,064 174,853 Yes

360 361,140 182,811 178,329 264,682 96,459 Yes

150 50,872 69,164 -18,292 0 No

299 183,957 144,353 39,604 132,373 51,584 Yes

300 304,917 144,858 160,059 132,962 171,955 Yes

360 361,140 175,135 186,005 263,844 97,296 Yes

150 50,897 68,873 -17,976 0 No

299 183,982 143,714 40,268 131,291 52,692 Yes

300 310,047 144,217 165,830 131,849 178,198 Yes

360 367,296 174,354 192,942 275,998 91,299 Yes

Cost

savingTariff City

Consumption

Tariff

electricity

costs as net

present value

Oaxaca

Distrito

Federal

1

Durango

Guadalajara

Puebla

1A

Cuautla

Tepic

Nogales

Los Tuxtlas



75

Full electricity

supply PV option


PV option

Costs as

net present

value

Cost

difference

Costs as

net present

value

Cost

difference

[kWh/month] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$]

200 74,345 81,679 -7,334 0 No

399 252,018 167,638 84,380 178,117 73,901 Yes

400 402,070 168,070 233,999 178,522 223,547 Yes

528 524,084 223,361 300,723 339,616 184,468 Yes

200 74,324 90,874 -16,550 0 No

399 252,069 187,290 64,779 177,622 74,448 Yes

400 405,463 187,774 217,688 178,080 227,382 Yes

528 527,633 249,791 277,843 340,147 187,486 Yes

200 74,324 97,862 -23,538 0 No

399 252,069 202,225 49,844 192,957 59,113 Yes

400 400,380 202,749 197,630 193,526 206,854 Yes

528 520,717 269,877 250,839 342,467 178,250 Yes

200 74,324 89,633 -15,309 0 No

399 252,069 184,638 67,431 182,108 69,961 Yes

400 405,463 185,116 220,347 182,592 222,870 Yes

528 527,633 246,225 281,409 333,254 194,379 Yes

238 78,598 115,001 -36,404 0 No

849 582,694 428,421 154,273 444,264 138,430 Yes

850 806,251 428,933 377,317 444,830 361,421 Yes

1,067 1,005,524 540,155 465,369 753,288 252,236 Yes

238 78,598 131,328 -52,730 0 No

849 582,694 491,731 90,963 480,137 102,557 Yes

850 820,297 492,320 327,977 480,786 339,512 Yes

1,067 1,024,759 620,214 404,545 782,773 241,986 Yes

238 78,557 126,715 -48,158 0 No

849 582,952 473,843 109,109 484,474 98,479 Yes

850 820,297 474,411 345,886 485,083 335,215 Yes

1,067 1,023,724 597,595 426,129 750,903 272,821 Yes

238 78,557 122,430 -43,873 0 No

849 582,952 457,227 125,726 456,523 126,429 Yes

850 834,832 457,774 377,058 457,117 377,715 Yes

1,067 1,041,963 576,582 465,381 741,567 300,396 Yes

Cost

savingTariff City

Consumption

Tariff

electricity

costs as net

present value

1C

Cd. Juárez

Monterrey

Tampico

Mérida

1B

Chihuahua

Acapulco

Poza Rica

Riviera Maya



76

Full electricity

supply PV option


PV option

Costs as

net present

value

Cost

difference

Costs as

net present

value

Cost

difference

[kWh/month] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$]

300 99,300 150,368 -51,068 0 No

999 667,473 517,106 150,368 504,204 163,270 Yes

1,000 986,607 517,630 468,977 504,735 481,872 Yes

1,320 1,296,125 685,522 610,603 909,171 386,954 Yes

300 99,300 129,427 -30,127 0 No

999 667,473 442,937 224,536 470,976 196,498 Yes

1,000 1,000,767 443,386 557,381 471,572 529,195 Yes

1,320 1,328,600 586,910 741,690 925,158 403,441 Yes

300 99,300 142,079 -42,779 0 No

999 667,473 487,748 179,725 521,346 146,127 Yes

1,000 960,856 488,243 472,613 521,900 438,955 Yes

1,320 1,262,100 646,489 615,611 920,396 341,704 Yes

300 99,219 132,906 -33,687 0 No

999 667,838 455,259 212,580 474,226 193,612 Yes

1,000 977,956 455,720 522,236 474,823 503,132 Yes

1,320 1,283,383 603,292 680,091 884,374 399,009 Yes

500 153,011 257,958 -104,947 0 No

1,999 1,446,558 1,054,541 392,018 1,078,168 368,390 Yes

2,000 1,949,414 1,055,072 894,342 1,078,736 870,678 Yes

2,640 2,568,449 1,395,174 1,173,275 1,922,404 646,045 Yes

500 153,011 208,239 -55,228 0 No

1999 1,446,558 847,919 598,640 912,992 533,567 Yes

2,000 1,949,414 848,346 1,101,068 913,386 1,036,027 Yes

2,640 2,568,449 1,121,458 1,446,991 1,799,937 768,512 Yes

500 153,011 275,508 -122,498 0 No

1,999 1,446,558 1,127,476 319,082 1,149,379 297,180 Yes

2,000 1,897,911 1,128,044 769,866 1,150,011 747,900 Yes

2,640 2,500,400 1,491,793 1,008,607 1,914,186 586,214 Yes

500 153,011 276,054 -123,043 0 No

1999 1,446,558 1,129,745 316,814 1,157,356 289,202 Yes

2,000 1,897,911 1,130,314 767,597 1,157,995 739,916 Yes

2,640 2,500,400 1,494,799 1,005,601 1,955,766 544,634 Yes

Cost

savingTariff City

Consumption

Tariff

electricity

costs as net

present value

1E

Culiacán

Guaymas

Reynosa

Piedras

Negras

1D

Mazatlán

La Paz

Matamoros

Cd. Altamirano



77

Source: Own display

Full electricity

supply PV option


PV option

Costs as

net present

value

Cost

difference

Costs as

net present

value

Cost

difference

[kWh/month] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$]

725 220,715 334,466 -113,752 0 No

2,499 1,587,419 1,168,064 419,355 1,318,786 268,632 Yes

2,750 1,827,014 1,286,008 541,006 1,362,124 464,890 Yes

870 310,503 402,602 -92,098 265,681 44,822 Yes

725 220,715 360,686 -139,971 0 No

2499 1,587,419 1,260,732 326,687 1,391,012 196,407 Yes

2,750 1,952,899 1,388,078 564,821 1,462,208 490,691 Yes

870 310,503 434,252 -123,749 272,065 38,438 Yes

725 220,715 334,367 -113,652 0 No

2,499 1,587,419 1,167,712 419,706 1,326,261 261,157 Yes

2,750 1,952,899 1,285,621 667,278 1,377,393 575,506 Yes

870 310,503 402,481 -91,978 270,924 39,579 Yes

725 220,715 306,260 -85,545 0 No

2499 1,587,419 1,068,373 519,046 1,278,560 308,859 Yes

2,750 1,952,899 1,176,203 776,696 1,306,290 646,609 Yes

870 310,503 368,552 -58,049 257,657 52,846 Yes

Cost

savingTariff City

Consumption

Tariff

electricity

costs as net

present value

1F

Mexicali

San Luis Rio

Colorado

Cd. Obregón

Hermosillo



78

An overview about the generation costs of photovoltaic systems in this scenario shows Figure 11. In this scenario the generation costs of the photovoltaic systems range from about 1.78 to 2.46 $/kWh.


Source: Own display


General learnings:

Scenario 3 shows a very high potential for cost reductions by the use of photovoltaic systems for all residential tariffs. Here cost-saving applications in the consumption ranges next below the DAC are possible in all regions.

The scenario clearly shows that by halving the prices of photovoltaic modules the systems would become cost-saving for all consumption volumes exceeding the basic consumption range.

As a result strong market niches exist for consumers of higher volumes. Only in the lowest consumption range of the tariffs the photovoltaic generation costs are still more expensive.

The fact that no DAC applies during summer in Tariff 1F poses a barrier to the application of photovoltaic in some of Mexico’s sun riches regions.


For all cities considered in the study the possibility exists to save costs in the consumption range next below the DAC by one or both photovoltaic options. In other words in all tariffs but 1F the photovoltaic generation costs are even lower than the average tariff of the consumption range next below the DAC.

In the consumption range of the DAC photovoltaic systems are cost-saving in all tariffs but 1F.

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50

Radiation [kWh/m2d]

PV

ge

ne

ratio

n c

osts

[$

/kW

h]



79

In all tariffs but 1F it is possible to save costs in the consumption range next below the DAC depending on the radiation and the substructure of the respective tariff due to the effect of a drop from the highest tariff to a lower one, as has been explained above. For radiations above 5 kWh/m2/d photovoltaic options save costs against the tariff of the consumption range next below the DAC. The only exception is Tariff 1F as no DAC applies for it during summer.

For Tariff 1F photovoltaic applications can only save costs by a tariff drop for the highest considered consumption volumes.


All of the cities analysed in the study feature potentials for a cost-saving photovoltaic application. Out of the universe of the 29 cities analysed, the mentioned niches exist in the cities shown in Table 36.

The size of the niches of Scenario 3 sums up to 27% of the analysed household and is shown in Table 37.

6.1.4 Analysis of the scenarios from a macro-perspective

The analysis performed above showed growing market niches in the residential sector for the application of photovoltaic systems in the mid-term. Due to the subsidies paid by the Mexican government an increasing number of grid-connected photovoltaic applications in the residential sector would have implications beyond the household level. This is because photovoltaic systems can be designed to cause a tariff drop, lowering the tariff the household has to pay per kilowatt-hour purchased from the grid. Since a lower tariff means more state subsidies (see ¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la referencia.) a wider use of photovoltaic systems in the residential sector could thus (depending on whether quantity or price effect prevails) lead to an increase in the total amount of subsidies the Mexican government has to pay.

For this reason it seems necessary to carry out a detailed analysis of options that result financially attractive from both an investor’s and the government’s perspective. Such an analysis goes beyond the scope of the present study, since its objective was the identification of market niches from an investor’s perspective. However, first estimations were realised in order to provide some initial figures on the change in the size of market niches that would result from two alternative macro-approaches. These macro-approaches are in financial terms more attractive from a government’s perspective since they imply lower subsidy-levels compared to the situation without PV systems and a situation with increasing use of PV systems under the current electricity tariff structure in Mexico.



80

Table 40 gives a summary of the core assumptions of the micro-approach presented in previous sections and the macro-approaches analysed in this chapter.

Table 40: Core assumptions of micro- and macro-approaches

Micro-Approach: Investor’s perspective

Macro-Approach: Government’s Perspective

“No tariff change” (hypothetical)

“No subsidies” (hypothetical)

PV niches with the current electricity tariff structure

PV niches neglecting the subsidy effect resulting from a possible change to a lower tariff (tariff drop)

PV niches in a market free of subsidies with cost-oriented electricity tariffs

Source: Own display

Macro-approach “No tariff change” neglects the possibility of a tariff drop. In other words the underlying assumption is that a change to a higher subsidised tariff is not possible. Market niches identified in this way do not cover cases in which the photovoltaic system turns out financially feasible due to a change to a higher subsidised and thus cheaper tariff. This macro-approach results much more attractive from a government’s perspective since it does definitely imply a decreasing level of total subsidies, as a household investing in a photovoltaic system would remain in the same tariff while consuming less electricity from the grid. In contrast to the micro-approach, this approach gives a concrete idea on the size of market niches that purely result from cheaper electricity provided by photovoltaic generation (compared to the tariff currently paid by the respective household).

Macro-approach “No subsidies” assumes cost-oriented electricity tariffs free of subsidies. Therefore this approach replaces the existing tariffs by a single reference tariff which is supposed to represent cost covering electricity prices. As such a reference tariff the respective DAC tariff of the considered region is applied. This approach allows identifying market niches in a hypothetical world free of subsidies and gives a clearer idea on the real competitiveness of photovoltaic systems in the Mexican electricity sector.

The objective of these two approaches is to provide initial information necesary to evaluate the impact of photovoltaic systems from the point of view of the Mexican government. In this sense, the results presented in this chapter are intended to pose a basis for further analysis on possible promotion strategies for photovoltaic systems by the Mexican government.



81

6.1.4.1 Determination of market niches from a macro-perspective

Compared to the micro-approach the determination of the size of the market niches for the 28 cities under the two macro-approaches differs only slightly. The determination of market niches according to the macro-approaches can be divided into the following steps:

Step 1: Compilation of consumption ranges in which PV use results financially feasible under the assumption of the respective considered approach.

a) Calculation of the average tariffs of all subconsumption ranges for all different tariffs.

b) Calculation of average tariffs for each consumption volume used in the statistics of CFE on which the analysis is based (see Table 42). For Macro-approach “No tariff change” these average tariffs are calculated from the respective average tariffs of the subconsumption ranges determined in Step 1 a). For Macro-approach “No subsidies” the average tariffs of the consumption volumes are calculated from the average DAC tariffs only, due to the underlying assumption that DAC prices apply to all households independent of their consumption volume.

c) Comparison of the average tariffs of each consumption volume with the average generation costs of the photovoltaic system. The latter are taken from the calculation of the Micro-approach, since PV generation costs do not depend on the different assumptions regarding the tariffs in the different micro- and macro-approaches.

Step 2: Calculation of total consumers/ households falling into these niches using the data provided to Conuee by CFE which provide detailed figures on the number of households falling into the different consumption volumes in the 28 cities.

Step 3: Estimation of the potential market size in terms of capacity (MWp) for financially feasible use of grid-connected PV systems in the two macro-approaches.

a) Definition of different consumption groups for each tariff based on the consumption ranges applying for the respective tariffs and the calculation of an average consumption volume for each consumption group.

b) For each tariff, allocation of average PV capacities to each of these consumption groups by means of the underlying excel model using the full supply option and based on the results for a city out of the four cities analysed in each tariff with a relatively high solar radiation and assuming the average consumption values. A comparatively high radiation was chosen in order to come up with a conservative estimation since a relatively low radiation would have led to above average PV system capacities. The system capacity resulting from the calculation of the excel model is then reduced by a factor of 50%43 as it appears too optimistic to assume that all users inside the niche will install that system size. This factor was chosen randomly in order to adopt again a rather consverative point of view.

43

In Scenario 3 of Macro-approach “No subsidies” this factor was reduced to 20% as the number of households inside the niche turn out to be the same for Scenario 2 and 3. Measured in USD this would have resulted in a lower total niche size of Scenario 3 compared to Scenario 2 which would have been contradictory as the general conditions appear to be more favourable. This is why the reduction factor was adapted in a way that the total investment in USD stays the same for Scenario 2 and 3.



82

c) Sum-up of the number of potential households of each consumption group and multiplication with the respective average PV capacities leading to the total capacity by city which results financially feasible for each of these consumption groups.

d) Sum-up of the amounts of financially feasible capacities of the different consumption groups in order to come up with the total potential market size in MWp regarding the 28 cities that were analysed.

Step 4: Estimation of the potential market size in financial terms by simply multiplying the market potential in MWp with the respective prices in USD that were assumed for the different scenarios.

Table 41 sums up the core differences in the determination of the sizes of the market niches of the different approaches. Due to the differences in determing the average PV capacities the calculated sizes of the market niches of the macro-approaches can not be compared directly and in detail with those of the micro-approach. Nevertheless, conclusions can be derived by comparing the results on a general basis.

Table 41: Core differences between macro and micro-approaches in the determination of market niche sizes

Micro-Approach Investor’s perspective

Macro-Approach Government’s Perspective

“No tariff change” “No subsidies”

PV niches with the current electricity tariff structure

PV niches neglecting the subsidy effect resulting from a possible change in tariff

PV niches in a market free of subsidies with cost-oriented electricity tariffs

Apllied electricity tariffs

Current tariffs Average tariffs Average DAC tariffs

Determination of “average PV capacities” by calculation of systems for

Partial supply Full supply + Reduction factor:

Scenario 2: 50%

Scenario 3: 50%

Full supply + Reduction factor:

Scenario 2: 50%

Scenario 3: 20%

Source: Own display

The following example shows the different steps for the determination of the sizes of the market niches explained above. Table 42 shows the structure of the data made available by CFE.



83

Table 42: Example of data obtained from CFE

Source: Own display on the basis of CFE statistics

City 1 City 2 City 3 City 4

0 19,071 5,471 1,889 1,247

5 12,964 4,031 1,059 1,012

10 7,621 2,181 632 833

15 6,279 1,794 548 891

20 5,923 1,733 524 1,017

25 5,690 1,697 515 1,146

50 31,342 9,931 3,110 5,945

75 40,793 14,463 4,502 6,198

100 49,603 18,885 6,440 6,788

125 49,853 20,455 8,202 6,302

140 26,558 11,634 5,566 3,186

150 15,397 7,049 3,806 1,815

175 28,208 13,825 9,092 3,278

200 16,584 9,037 7,927 2,000

225 9,889 5,640 6,484 1,192

250 6,022 3,591 5,145 735

300 6,180 3,693 7,121 754

400 3,882 2,109 6,711 489

450 747 309 1,576 82

500 464 182 1,015 55

600 536 181 1,139 58

750 367 97 766 33

850 128 31 254 14

900 44 10 90 5

1,000 66 15 127 8

1,200 77 15 145 9

1,250 12 2 23 1

1,500 39 11 75 6

1,750 21 4 41 4

2,000 10 2 23 3

2,250 6 1 15 2

2,500 5 0 10 1

2,750 3 1 6 0

3,000 2 0 5 0

3,250 2 1 2 0

3,500 2 0 2 0

3,750 1 0 2 0

4,000 0 0 1 0

5,000 2 0 2 0

6,000 1 0 1 0

7,000 1 0 0 0

8,000 0 0 0 0

10,000 0 0 0 0

over 150

DAC

up to 150

Number of usersConsumption

ranges

[kWh/month]

Consumption

volumes

[kWh/month]



84

Example Step 1: Compilation of consumption ranges in which PV use results financially feasible.

a) Calculation of the average tariffs of all subconsumption ranges. Table 43 shows how the average tariffs of the subconsumption ranges were calculated. As shown by the markings in the example the average tariff is calculated from the respective six months of the considered season (summer or winter).

Table 43: Example Step 1 a): Calculation of average tariffs for consumption ranges in Scenario 1 in summer season

Source: Own display

b) Calculation of average tariffs for each consumption volume. As consumption volumes the 43 consumption volumes ranging from 0 to 10,000 kWh/month used in the data obtained from CFE (see Table 42) are used. In the example shown in Table 44 a consumption volume of 300 kWh/month is assumed.

Table 44: Example Step 1 b): Calculation of average tariffs for consumption volumes/Scenario 1

Source: Own display

c) Comparison of the average tariffs of each consumption volume with the average generation costs of the photovoltaic system.

Example Step 2: Calculation of total consumers/ households falling into these niches. On the basis of the data obtained from CFE the number of users whose average tariff is higher than the generation costs of a photovoltaic system can be determined for each city.

SUMMER SEASON


Range of consumption Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Average

Basic 1-100 0.541 0.543 0.545 0.547 0.549 0.551 0.553 0.555 0.557 0.559 0.561 0.563 0.552

Intermediate 0.642 0.644 0.646 0.648 0.650 0.652 0.654 0.656 0.658 0.660 0.662 0.664 0.653


Range of consumption Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Basic 1-100 0.541 0.543 0.545 0.547 0.549 0.551 0.553 0.555 0.557 0.559 0.561 0.563 0.552

Intermediate 101-150 0.812 0.815 0.818 0.821 0.824 0.827 0.830 0.833 0.836 0.839 0.842 0.845 0.829

Exceeding 2.164 2.171 2.178 2.185 2.192 2.199 2.206 2.213 2.220 2.227 2.234 2.241 2.203

Tariff 1A

Consumption volume 300 kWh/month

Summer Winter

Basic a [$] 100 x 0.552 100 x 0.632

Intermediate b [$] 50 x 0.829 50 x 1.0385

Exceeding c [$] 150 x 2.203 150 x 2.2025

Seasonal average tariff (a+b+c)/300 [$] 1.057 1.118

Average tariff (sum+win)/2 [$]

Subconsumption range

1.087



85

Example Step 3: Estimation of the potential market size in terms of capacity (MWp).

a) Definition of different consumption groups for each tariff and calculation of an average consumption volume for each consumption group. As shown by the figure below, the sum of the users inside the niche of each consumption volume is multiplied with the respective consumption volume.

Figure 12: Example Step 3 a) Calculation of average consumption volume for users in a niche in a certain consumption group

Source: Own display

For each consumption range the “volumes x users” are sumed up as well as the total number of users inside the niche of the respective consumption range. Table 45 shows the calculation assuming that all users of the consumption range are inside the niche.



86

Table 45: Example Step 3 a) Calculation of average consumption volume for users in a niche in a certain consumption group

Source: Own display

As shown by Table 46, by dividing the sum of “volume x users” by the “total number of users in niche in consumption range” the average consumption volume of the total number of users inside the niche in the respective consumption group results.

Table 46: Example Step 3 a) Calculation of average consumption volume for users in a niche in a certain consumption group

Source: Own display

b) Allocation of average PV capacities to each of the consumption groups by means of the underlying excel model using the full supply option and by applying reduction factors. The resulting average PV capacities for Macro-approaches “No tariff change” and “No subsidies” can be found in Annex 23 and Annex 24.

c) Sum-up of the number of potential households of each consumption group and multiplying them with the respective average PV capacities leading to the total capacity which results financially feasible for each of these consumption groups. Table 41 shows the calculation.

City 1 City 2 City 3 City 4

[kWh/month] [kWh/month] [n] [kWh*n/month]

150 15.397 7.049 3.806 1.815 28.068 4.210.125

175 28.208 13.825 9.092 3.278 54.402 9.520.365

200 16.584 9.037 7.927 2.000 35.548 7.109.533

225 9.889 5.640 6.484 1.192 23.205 5.221.013

250 6.022 3.591 5.145 735 15.493 3.873.271

Sum 156.715 29.934.306

[n]

Volume

x

users

over 150

Total number of

users in niche in

consumption

group

Consumption

ranges

Consumption

volumesNumber of users

Sum

volume

x

users

Total number of users in niche in

consumption group

Monthly average consumption

volume of users in niche

[kWh*n/month] [n] [kWh/month]

a b a/b

29,934,306 156,715 191



87

Table 47: Example Step 3 c) Calculation of total capacity resulting financially feasible for consumption group

Source: Own display

d) Sum-up of the amounts of financially feasible capacities of the different consumption groups

in order to come up with the total potential market size in MWp regarding the 28 cities that were analysed.

Example Step 4: Estimation of the potential market size in financial terms by simply multiplying the market potential in MWp with the respective prices in USD that were assumed for the different scenarios.

6.1.4.2 Market niches from a macro perspective

Table 48 and Table 49 summarize the results for the Macro-approaches “No tariff change” and “No subsidies”. Beside the total size of the niches in each scenario the tables also show the five cities with the biggest niches in order to make the results more tangible. Both approaches showed no niches for Scenario 1.

Total number of users in

niche in consumption group

Allocated average

PV capacity

Total capacity

resulting financially

feasible for

consumption group

[n] [kWp] [kWp]

a b axb

156,715 0.80 125,372



88

Table 48: Summary of results for the macro-approach “No tariff change”

Source: Own display

Learnings and conclusion (Macro-Approach “No tariff change”)

General learnings:

No niches in Scenario 1.

Significant market niches in Scenario 2 and 3 in spite of the unfavourable assumptions made by Macro-approach “No tariff change”.

The result proves, that the framework conditions for the photovoltaic market in Mexico can be designed in a way that allow cost-saving applications of photovoltaic systems by a significant percentage of housholds in the mid-term offering at the time the opportunity to reduce the total amount of subsidies paid by the Mexican government.


Scenario 2 and 3 of the macro approach feature niches for the cost-saving application of photovoltaic systems in all cities.

Niches mainly exist for consumption volumes above and close to the DAC limit.


The size of the niches of Macro-approach “No tariff change” is shown in Table 48.

Potential

capacity Households

Size of

niche

Range of PV

size

[MWp] [n] [mill. USD] [kWp]

1 Guadalajara 97 72,036 728 1.40

2 Chihuahua 40 17,804 300 2.25

3 Hermosillo 37 1,139 277 16.20

4 Nogales 34 19,151 251 1.75

5 Poza Rica 29 12,688 214 2.25

236 122,818 1,770

Total 28 Cities 516 224,462 3,867

1 Mexicali 365 71,323 1,707 3.1 - 12.3

2 Guadalajara 225 255,036 1,055 0.7 - 1.4

3 Hermosillo 201 50,217 942 3.1 - 12.3

4 Tampico 111 38,116 520 2.6 - 5.4

5 Obregon 70 16,627 330 3.1 - 12.3

973 431,319 4,554

Total 28 Cities 1,812 824,533 8,482

no niches

Sc.2:

Conservative

OutlookTotal "Top 5"

Sc.3:

Optimistic

outlookTotal "Top 5"

Scenario "Top 5"

Sc.1:

Current

niches



89

Table 49: Summary of results for the macro-approach “No subsidies”

Source: Own display

Learnings and conclusion (Macro-Approach “No subsidies”)

General learnings:

No niches in Scenario 1.

Very significant market niches in Scenario 2 and 3.

Subsidies cause significant market distortions. This can be seen by the huge differences in the size of the niches in Macro-approach “No subsidies” to those identified in the micro-approach.


Scenario 2 and 3 feature niches for the cost-saving application of photovoltaic systems in all cities and all consumption volumes.


The size of the niches of Macro-approach “No tariff change” is shown in Table 49.

In Scenario 2 of Macro-approach “No subsidies” the calculated size of the niche in megawatt-hours is about five and a half times bigger compared to the respective result of the micro-approach and four and a half times in Scenario 3.

Potential

capacity Households

Size of

niche

[MWp] [n] [mill. USD]

1 Mexicali 510 237,010 3,822 1.3 - 12.3

2 Guadalajara 391 910,132 2,932 0.2 - 1.4

3 Monterrey 336 318,315 2,515 0.6 - 5.4

4 Hermosillo 323 203,369 2,416 1.3 - 12.3

5 Cd. Juarez 302 332,883 2,259 0.6 - 5.4

1,861 2,001,708 13,943

Total 28 Cities 4,580 5,607,111 34,308

1 Mexicali 702 237,010 3,285 2.0 - 19.7

2 Guadalajara 538 910,132 2,519 0.3 - 2.2

3 Monterrey 462 318,315 2,161 0.9 - 8.6

4 Hermosillo 444 203,369 2,077 2.0 - 19.7

5 Cd. Juarez 415 332,883 1,941 0.9 - 8.6

2,559 2,001,708 11,983

Total 28 Cities 7,328 5,607,111 34,308

no niches

Sc.3:

Optimistic

outlookTotal "Top 5"

Sc.1:

Current

niches

Sc.2:

Conservative

OutlookTotal "Top 5"

Scenario "Top 5"

Range of PV

size

[kWp]



90

6.1.5 Conclusions

Concerning the questions approached in Chapter 3 regarding the residential sector it can be observed that:

The subsidies paid by the Mexican government in order to keep the tariffs low for households consuming in the ranges below the DAC are one of the most significant barriers to a wider application of photovoltaic systems. It can be stated that any cutback of subsidies would directly multiply the market niches above further.

The structure of Tariff 1F also poses a barrier as on the one hand most of its regions feature excellent conditions for the application of photovoltaic systems while on the other hand it has no DAC limit during summer, i.e. in contrast to other regions in 1F-regions no DAC applies during the hottest period of the year.

From the results of the two macro-approaches it can be concluded that the application of photovoltaic systems offer a huge potential for the Mexican government to cutback subsidies on the one hand while on the other hand providing clean and cheap energy to a large part of its citizens.

6.2 Industry and services sectors

6.2.1 Scenario 1: Current niches

The results of the cost analysis for this scenario can be found in Annex 21. In all tariffs the generation costs of the photovoltaic systems are considerably higher than the average tariff costs. As there aren´t even niches for a rather extreme radiation of 6 kWh/m2/d, no calculations with lower radiaton were made. As explained previously this wouldn´t have made any sense at all.


General learnings:

Even for very high radiations, the analysis found no single case in which a photovoltaic system is cost-saving in this scenario.

As a conclusion it can be stated that at present there exist no niches for a cost-saving application of photovoltaic systems by companies to which applies one of the regarded general tariffs.

6.2.2 Scenario 2: Conservative outlook

This scenario serves as a conservative outlook on the development of the generation costs in the coming five to six years. It considers a decrease of 20% of photovoltaic system prices and thus is more conservative than the expectations quoted by photovoltaic producers for that period.



91

The part of the results which contains some market niches and thus the most interesting part of the cost comparison is shown in Table 50. The complete results can be found in the Annex 22.

Table 50: Scenario 2 - Cost-saving PV applications in industry and services sectors

Source: Own display


Under Scenario 2 photovoltaic systems turn out to be cost-saving in Tariff 2 for all regarded radiations as well as in Tariff 3 for high radiations.

Depending on the assumed radiation and on system sizes, generation costs in this scenario range from 1.76 to 2.63 $/kWh which makes them in average 35% cheaper than the generation costs of the residential sector. The reason for this cost difference are the lower investment costs of the photovoltaic systems assumed for the industry and services sectors due to bigger system sizes.


General learnings:

Niches for PV applications exist in Tariff 2 and 3.

As the price reductions assumed in this scenario are quite conservative it can be expected that for most Mexican companies photovoltaic systems may become interesting in the coming years.


Niches exist in all regions in Tariff 2.

In Tariff 3 niches exist for regions featuring very high radiations of about 6 kWh/m2/d.


Tariff 2 has about 93% of all users of the considered general tariffs. As a result the total number of potential enterprises to which photovoltaic system may be interesting amounts to about 2,500,000.



92

6.2.3 Scenario 3: Optimistic outlook

The price assumption of this scenario is based on the expectations for the next five to seven years quoted by dealers and manufacturers and should be regarded as quite optimistic. The assumption is a decrease of 50% in photovoltaic system prices. The expected price reduction was justified by dealers and manufacturers with the envisaged elimination of four currently existing bottlenecks in the supply chain for photovoltaic modules over the next five years. Bottlenecks currently exist for the availability of cells, the encapsulation of cells, plastic films and for glass.

Table 51 shows the results of the cost comparison under Scenario 3 for the industry and services sectors.



93

Table 51: Scenario 3 - Cost comparison industry and services sectors

Radiation 6 kWh/m2/d 5 kWh/m

2/d 4,5 kWh/m

2/d

Average

charged

capacity

demand per

month of PV

user

Average

consumption

per month of PV

user

Cost

difference

Cost

saving

Cost

difference

Cost

saving

Cost

difference

Cost

saving

kW [kWh/month] $ $ $

270 7,263 YES 5,406 YES 4,477 YES

135 3,632 YES 3,243 YES 3,134 YES

540 14,527 YES 10,811 YES 13,430 YES

63 4,600 62,994 YES 48,812 YES 39,779 YES

26 2,300 29,644 YES 24,406 YES 19,890 YES

100 9,200 125,987 YES 97,624 YES 81,367 YES

100 2,300 29,644 YES 24,406 YES 19,890 YES

26 9,200 125,987 YES 97,624 YES 81,367 YES

50 5,300 16,344 YES 1,599 YES -8,471 NO

10 2,650 8,602 YES 834 YES -4,236 NO

99 10,600 33,548 YES 3,198 YES -16,943 NO

99 2,650 8,602 YES 834 YES -4,236 NO

10 10,600 33,548 YES 3,198 YES -16,943 NO

50 5,300 28,054 YES 13,412 YES 3,547 YES

10 2,650 14,765 YES 6,997 YES 1,773 YES

99 10,600 57,584 YES 26,823 YES 7,093 YES

99 2,650 14,765 YES 6,997 YES 1,773 YES

10 10,600 57,584 YES 26,823 YES 7,093 YES

50 5,300 21,042 YES 6,338 YES -3,650 NO

10 2,650 11,075 YES 3,307 YES -1,825 NO

99 10,600 43,191 YES 12,676 YES -7,300 NO

99 2,650 11,075 YES 3,307 YES -1,825 NO

10 10,600 43,191 YES 12,676 YES -7,300 NO

200 77,000 -26,923 NO -245,780 NO -391,063 NO

110 38,500 -13,509 NO -122,890 NO -196,053 NO

300 144,000 40,625 YES -349,647 NO -609,723 NO

300 38,500 -13,509 NO -122,890 NO -196,053 NO

110 144,000 40,625 YES -349,647 NO -609,723 NO

200 77,000 41,109 YES -177,587 NO -322,971 NO

110 38,500 20,628 YES -88,793 NO -161,916 NO

300 144,000 167,974 YES -222,339 NO -482,435 NO

300 38,500 20,628 YES -88,793 NO -161,916 NO

110 144,000 167,974 YES -222,339 NO -482,435 NO

200 77,000 -40,651 NO -259,541 NO -404,803 NO

110 38,500 -20,398 NO -129,770 NO -202,941 NO

300 144,000 14,928 YES -375,336 NO -635,408 NO

300 38,500 -20,398 NO -129,770 NO -202,941 NO

110 144,000 14,928 YES -375,336 NO -635,408 NO

200 60,000 247,428 YES 77,372 YES -36,097 NO

110 30,000 124,279 YES 38,833 YES -18,048 NO

300 120,000 494,857 YES 245,766 YES 28,865 YES

300 30,000 124,279 YES 38,833 YES -18,048 NO

110 120,000 494,857 YES 245,766 YES 28,865 YES

Central

Northeast

H-MC Northeast

Tariff

2

3

O-M

Baja

California

Central

Northeast

H-M

Baja

Calfornia



94


2/d 4,5 kWh/m

2/d

Average

charged

capacity

demand per

month of PV

user

Average

consumption

per month of PV

user

Cost

difference

Cost

saving

Cost

difference

Cost

saving

Cost

difference

Cost

saving


300 1,710,000 8,831,564 YES 4,497,656 YES 1,608,719 YES

150 855,000 4,415,075 YES 2,248,828 YES 804,263 YES

600 3,420,000 17,661,713 YES 8,995,311 YES 3,217,439 YES

600 855,000 4,415,075 YES 2,248,828 YES 804,263 YES

150 3,420,000 17,661,713 YES 8,995,311 YES 3,217,439 YES

300 1,710,000 2,037,898 YES -2,295,648 NO -5,184,674 NO

150 855,000 1,018,786 YES -1,147,824 NO -2,592,026 NO

600 3,420,000 4,075,469 YES -4,591,295 NO -10,369,349 NO

600 855,000 1,018,786 YES -1,147,824 NO -2,592,026 NO

150 3,420,000 4,075,469 YES -4,591,295 NO -10,369,349 NO

300 1,710,000 723,928 YES -3,609,547 NO -6,498,592 NO

150 855,000 361,906 YES -1,804,774 NO -3,248,906 NO

600 3,420,000 1,447,740 YES -7,219,095 NO -12,997,183 NO

600 855,000 361,906 YES -1,804,774 NO -3,248,906 NO

150 3,420,000 1,447,740 YES -7,219,095 NO -12,997,183 NO

300 3,980,000 14,926,898 YES 4,840,960 YES -1,883,058 NO

150 1,990,000 7,462,936 YES 2,420,341 YES -941,578 NO

600 7,960,000 29,853,795 YES 9,681,643 YES -3,766,116 NO

600 1,990,000 7,462,936 YES 2,420,341 YES -941,578 NO

150 7,960,000 29,853,795 YES 9,681,643 YES -3,766,116 NO

300 3,980,000 3,499,121 YES -6,586,948 NO -13,310,639 NO

150 1,990,000 1,749,440 YES -3,293,285 NO -6,655,663 NO

600 7,960,000 6,998,241 YES -13,173,518 NO -26,621,277 NO

600 1,990,000 1,749,440 YES -3,293,285 NO -6,655,663 NO

150 7,960,000 6,998,241 YES -13,173,518 NO -26,621,277 NO

300 3,980,000 398,987 YES -9,687,117 NO -16,410,719 NO

150 1,990,000 199,480 YES -4,843,281 NO -8,205,783 NO

600 7,960,000 797,974 YES -19,373,679 NO -32,821,438 NO

600 1,990,000 199,480 YES -4,843,281 NO -8,205,783 NO

150 7,960,000 797,974 YES -19,373,679 NO -32,821,438 NO

H-SL

Baja

Calfornia

Central

Northeast

H-S

Baja

Calfornia

Central

Northeast

Tariff



95

Source: Own display


Tariff 2 & 3: In the tariffs 2 and 3 the photovoltaic systems are cost-saving for all regions.

Tariff O-M: In Tariff O-M photovoltaic systems are cost-saving for regions featuring a radiation of about 5 kWh/m2/d and higher independent of the tariff region. For low radiations only systems in the region Central turned out to be cost-saving as this region features among the highest prices of Tariff O-M. Furthermore, it can be said that photovoltaic systems are not cost-saving in the regions North, Northwest and Peninsula whereas they are cost-saving in the regions Baja California Sur and South.

Tariff H-M: Regarding Tariff H-M the model shows cost savings for all three regions Central, Baja California and Northeast. However, for the latter only two systems with high consumption levels are cost-saving, to be more precisely systems with sizes above 50 kW. This is due to the assumption that at a system size of 50 kW a lower price applies. This price drop is the reason for the two cases in each region, Baja California and Northeast, in which the systems are cost-


2/d 4,5 kWh/m

2/d

Average

charged

capacity

demand per

month of PV

user

Average

consumption

per month of PV

user

Cost

difference

Cost

saving

Cost

difference

Cost

saving

Cost

difference

Cost

saving


500 8,100,000 34,735,601 YES 14,209,204 YES 524,806 YES

250 4,050,000 17,368,387 YES 7,104,402 YES 262,403 YES

1,000 16,200,000 69,471,201 YES 28,418,408 YES 1,049,613 YES

1,000 4,050,000 17,368,387 YES 7,104,402 YES 262,403 YES

250 16,200,000 69,471,201 YES 28,418,408 YES 1,049,613 YES

500 8,100,000 -931,401 NO -21,457,998 NO -35,142,195 NO

250 4,050,000 -465,716 NO -10,728,697 NO -17,571,098 NO

1,000 16,200,000 -1,862,802 NO -42,915,997 NO -70,284,390 NO

1,000 4,050,000 -465,716 NO -10,728,697 NO -17,571,098 NO

250 16,200,000 -1,862,802 NO -42,915,997 NO -70,284,390 NO

500 8,100,000 -11,692,930 NO -32,219,588 NO -45,903,724 NO

250 4,050,000 -5,846,663 NO -16,109,340 NO -22,951,862 NO

1,000 16,200,000 -23,385,860 NO -64,439,176 NO -91,807,448 NO

1,000 4,050,000 -5,846,663 NO -16,109,340 NO -22,951,862 NO

250 16,200,000 -23,385,860 NO -64,439,176 NO -91,807,448 NO

500 39,000,000 107,490,963 YES 8,659,462 YES -57,227,988 NO

250 19,500,000 53,745,482 YES 4,329,706 YES -28,613,994 NO

1,000 78,000,000 214,981,927 YES 17,318,924 YES -114,456,278 NO

1,000 19,500,000 53,745,482 YES 4,329,706 YES -28,613,994 NO

250 78,000,000 214,981,927 YES 17,318,924 YES -114,456,278 NO

500 39,000,000 -9,981,803 NO -108,813,167 NO -174,700,342 NO

250 19,500,000 -4,990,901 NO -54,406,265 NO -87,350,171 NO

1,000 78,000,000 -19,963,606 NO -217,626,334 NO -349,401,604 NO

1,000 19,500,000 -4,990,901 NO -54,406,265 NO -87,350,171 NO

250 78,000,000 -19,963,606 NO -217,626,334 NO -349,401,604 NO

500 39,000,000 -61,836,548 NO -160,667,851 NO -226,554,905 NO

250 19,500,000 -30,918,274 NO -80,333,456 NO -113,277,452 NO

1,000 78,000,000 -123,673,095 NO -321,335,702 NO -453,111,002 NO

1,000 19,500,000 -30,918,274 NO -80,333,456 NO -113,277,452 NO

250 78,000,000 -123,673,095 NO -321,335,702 NO -453,111,002 NO

H-TL

Baja

Calfornia

Central

Peninsula

H-T

Baja

Calfornia

Central

Peninsula

Tariff



96

saving for the highest radiation. For the region Baja California Sur it can be concluded that the situation is the same as in the region Central. The situation in the other regions is much the same as in Northeast and Baja California.

Tariff H-MC: Photovoltaic systems are cost-saving for radiations of 5 to 6 kWh/m2/d and in cases of system sizes above 50 kWp also for a radiation of 4,5 kWh/m2/d. As the tariffs (prices to customer) of Northeast are lower than those of Baja California (the only other region this tariff applies for) it can be stated that the same niches exist there too.

Tariff H-S & H-SL: For the tariffs H-S and H-SL Scenario 3 shows that photovoltaic applications are cost-saving in all three regions, Northeast, Central, Baja California, for high radiations and in Baja California even for radiations from 4,5 to 6 kWh/m2/d in Tariff H-S and in Tariff H-SL for radiations from 5 to 6 kWh/m2/d respectively.

Tariff H-T & H-TL: Regarding the tariffs H-T and H-TL the application of photovoltaic systems is cost-saving only in the region of Baja California and there again only for radiations of 5 to 6 kWh/m2/d in Tariff H-TL and for radiations of 4,5 to 6 kWh/m2/d in Tariff H-T respectively. For the regions Northeast, Northwest, North and South the situation is the same as for Peninsular and Central. For the region of Baja California Sur the situation is about the same as in Baja California.

The generation costs of the regarded photovoltaic systems in this scenario range from 1,07 to 1,60 $/kWh and thus are about 35% cheaper than the respective maximum and minimum costs in the residential sector which is the result of the lower investment costs of photovoltaic systems assumed for the industry and services sectors.


General learnings:

Scenario 3 shows niches in Tariff 2 and 3 as well as for O-M and H-MC.

If market prices for PV systems would decline according to this Scenario, PV applications are very likely to attract strong investment from companies.


In Tariff 2 and 3 photovoltaic systems would become cost-saving for a radiation of 4.5 to 6 kWh/m2/d.

In Tariff O-M photovoltaic systems are cost-saving for all regions featuring a radiation of about 5 kWh/m2/d and higher

In Tariff H-M systems are cost-saving for very high radiations of about 6 kWh/m2/d in the region Central and Baja California Sur. Furthermore niches exist in the regions Baja California, Northeast, Northwest, North and South for systems above 50 kWp and a radiation of about 6 kWh/m2/d.

In Tariff H-MC photovoltaic systems are cost-saving in both regions for radiations of 5 to 6 kWh/m2/d and in cases of system sizes above 50 kWp also for a radiation of 4.5 kWh/m2/d.

For the tariffs H-S and H-SL photovoltaic applications are cost-saving in all regions for high radiations of about 6 kWh/m2/d. In Baja California systems are cost-saving for radiations from 4.5 to 6 kWh/m2/d in Tariff H-S and in Tariff H-SL for radiations from 5 to 6 kWh/m2/d respectively.



97

Regarding the tariffs H-T and H-TL the application of photovoltaic systems is cost-saving only in the regions of Baja California and Baja California Sur for radiations of 5 to 6 kWh/m2/d in Tariff H-TL and for radiations of 4,5 to 6 kWh/m2/d in Tariff H-T respectively.


Photovoltaic applications could be relevant to an estimated 98% of all users of the considered general tariffs which amounts to about 2,700,000 potential enterprises.

6.2.4 Conclusions

With respect to the analysis of the niches for the industry and services sectors it can be stated that:

the proportion of consumption volume and capacity demand hardly had any influence on the resulting niches.

the tariffs appear to be quite low in comparison with the residential sector although it was quoted by the Conuee that no subsidies are paid to the tariffs considered for the two sectors. It is not clear to which degree these tariffs reflect the actual generation costs of CFE. Furthermore, it can be assumed that the tariffs do not reflect the fuel costs causing a distortion of the competition to the disadvantage for the photovoltaic market and the market for renewable energies in general.


Methodological reflections and conclusions

99

7 Methodological reflections and conclusions

7.1 Sensitivity analysis

It lies in the nature of studies that their results depend to a large extent on the quality of available input data. As input data can vary due to different sources or differences in measurement this chapter presents a sensitivity analysis of the results presented in Chapter 6. Two core parameters are analysed:

the impact on the results of a variation in the solar radiation data for the residential sector (residential sector only, as a similar analysis varying the radiation is made in Chapter 6.2)

the impact on the results of a variation of the discount rate both for the residential sector as well as the industry and services sectors.

7.1.1 Influence of a variation of the solar radiation

Scenario 1: In order to analyse the impact of lower and higher solar radiation data on the cost-saving effect of photovoltaic systems in the residential sector in Scenario 1 the radiation is varied by ±15%. The results are shown in Annex 26 for the cost comparison of the photovoltaic systems for partial supply. The cost comparison of the systems for full supply is not shown as none of these systems is cost-saving, no matter the radiation. In Scenario 1 niches for photovoltaic systems in the residential sector only exist for households featuring a consumption volume slightly above the DAC limit. As it is shown in Annex 26 these niches appear in some more cities and obviously their cost-saving effect is increasing with a higher radiation and decreasing with a smaller one respectively. Nevertheless the considered smaller and higher radiation data shows no change in the characteristics of the niches as such and thus for the general economical situation of photovoltaic systems in Mexico at present. The same holds true for Scenarios 2 and 3 as shown in Annex 27 and Annex 28. In this way the core conclusion is that not even a quite significant variation of the solar radiation has a significant effect on the structure of the niches that were identified with the original input data.

Scenario 2: As in this scenario systems for full supply turn out to be cost-saving the differences between the tariff costs and the costs of both PV options are shown in Annex 27. However, the columns displaying “yes” if systems are cost-saving are not shown in Annex 27 due to lack of space. Scenario 2 showed cost-savings for PV systems applied by households consuming above the DAC limit. In Tariff 1 – 1B and Tariff 1D this result remains unchanged if radiation data is reduced by 15%. In Tariff 1C and Tariff 1E cities with rather low annual average radiations turn out to have higher generation costs than the average tariff as net present value. In other words, the niche still exists under the assumption of reduced radiation data but for full supply PV systems in cities with rather low annual average radiations. Furthermore, in the next consumption range below the DAC only cities with radiations above 5 kWh/m2/d and in the tariffs 1 – 1B are cost-saving if radiation data is reduced. In the case of increased radiation data PV systems for full supply in cities with very high radiations become even cost-saving in the consumption range next below the DAC. Thus, it can be stated that in this scenario higher or lower radiation data has no impact on the conclusion that PV systems are most interesting to households with a consumption range above the DAC.



100

Scenario 3: Annex 28 clearly shows that in Scenario 3 the variation of radiation data hardly shows any impact on the characteristics of the niches stated in Chapter 6.1. However, for a variation of +15% in some very few cities generation costs of PV systems become even lower than the average tariff as net present value of the lowest consumption range.

7.1.2 Influence of a variation of the discount rate

The discount rate has a strong impact on the calculation of the net present value of the overall tariff costs. As can be derived from Formula 5-1 low discount rates increase the net present value of the tariff costs whereas higher ones decrease it. In order to examine the impact of the

discount rate on the results of the three sectors it is varied by ±4%.

7.1.2.1 Residential sector

Scenario 1: Annex 29 shows the results of the cost comparison of Scenario 1 for the residential sector for discount rates of 4%, 8% (reference case) and 12%. As can be clearly seen in the table the low discount factor of 4% not only increases the cost-saving effect of the niches but also creates new niches altering the current market situation of photovoltaic systems in Mexico. For a discount rate of 4% the generation costs of photovoltaic systems would be already lower in regions with a radiation of about the national average than the average tariff without PV of the DAC. On the other side, the higher discount rate of 12% causes the niches nearly to disappear in all tariffs but 1.

Scenario 2: The variation of the discount rate to 4% makes PV generation costs cheaper than the tariff of the consumption range next below the DAC. In Tariff 1A the variation of ±4% shows no major changes of the niches’ characteristics. However, in most tariffs the variation of +4% leaves the PV option for full supply to be not cost-saving anymore which means that PV generation costs are higher than the average annual DAC as net present value. Thus, for a discount rate of 12% the niches would be much smaller (Annex 30).

Scenario 3: In cities with a rather high annual average radiation the lower discount rate would make PV systems cost-saving even in the lowest consumption range. On the other side, the higher discount rate hardly has any impact on the niches’ characterisitics. It can be stated that due to the low generation costs of Scenario 3 the discount rate has the lowest impact compared with the other scenarios (Annex 31: Scenario 3 - Cost comparison for different discount rates).

7.1.2.2 Industry and services sectors

What has been said above about the impact of the discount rate on the net present value of the tariff costs is true to the same degree for the industry and services sectors. For the discount rates of 4%, 8% (reference case) and 12% only the parts of the cost comparison of the general tariffs is shown in the tables which feature niches.

Scenario 1: As can be seen in Annex 32 the low discount rate causes niches for photovoltaic systems to appear in Tariff 2 of Scenario 1 even if their cost-saving effect might still be quite low. All other tariffs show no reaction concerning niches. For a discount rate of 12% the general conclusion on the current market situation of photovoltaic systems in the industry and services sectors is unchanged.



101

Scenario 2: Annex 33 shows that in Scenario 2 a discount rate of 4% would make PV systems cost-saving against the general tariffs in some cases. This mainly happens in Tariff 2 and 3. In other tariffs this only occurs for regions which feature quite low tariffs and high radiations. The higher discount rate would cause PV systems to be cost-saving only in Tariff 2 and only in regions with radiations of about the national average or higher. Thus, for Scenario 2 it can be stated that the impact of the discount rate on the situation of PV systems appears to be quite high.

Scenario 3: As can be seen in Annex 34 the impact of the discount rate on the PV niches is quite strong in this scenario. For the low discount rate nearly all considered cases of PV applications are cost-saving whereas for a discount rate of 8% the main niches still exist in the tariffs 2 – OM as well as in the other tariffs for regions with very high radiations. On the other side for the considered high discount rate PV systems are only cost-saving in Tariff 2 and 3.

7.2 Limitations of the study

Taking into account the quite limited data and information currently available concerning the financial feasibility of grid-connected photovoltaic systems in Mexico this study should be understood as a first step. This is why the cost comparison between tariffs and photovoltaic systems of the present study is limited to the analysis if photovoltaic systems can save costs against the tariffs. Beyond that, the profitability of photovoltaic systems being cost-saving has not been further regarded. Thus, the expressiveness of the study for investment decisions is somehow limited. A future study should focus on the calculation of payback periods and profitability indicators.

The variables used for the calculation of the photovoltaic systems bear some uncertainties due to the fact that they had to be applied on a quite general basis and could not be determined for individual cases. So, for example, in the residential sector it was decided to introduce the high temperature loss factor as the differences in average summer temperature between the regions appeared to be quite high and as the regarded crystalline modules feature efficiency losses due to high temperatures whereas other variables like the cloudiness could not be considered. Another aspect that should be pointed out in this context is that the sizing of the systems did not result in sizes that would in every case allow for an installation at that size in reality. The results of the cost comparison thus reflect the situation of an optimally sized system (from a financial point of view). Concerning the data used it has to be pointed out that it was not possible to determine the data by means of proper empirical research because of time and resource constraints. In this context it seems of particular interest to validate the actual performance of photovoltaic systems of different sizes in Mexico and determine representative consumption volumes for different household sizes and business branches. The two Excel models designed for the residential sector and for the industry and services sectors offer a sound base to improve the preciseness of the results once better data is available.



102

7.3 Closing remarks and outlook

This study discussed the financial feasiblity of grid-connected photovoltaic systems in the Mexican residential sector and in the industry and services sectors. As the study showed in Scenario 1 at present the electricity generation costs of a photovoltaic system are under no circumstances cheaper than the applying tariffs of all three sectors. As a result the study concludes that with current equipment prices the conditions for a financially feasible use of grid-connected photovoltaic systems in the Mexican residential as well as the industry and services sectors are quite limited. However, looking into the near future the mid-term perspectives for grid-connected photovoltaic applications in the Mexican residential sector appear to be much brighter. Against the background of last years’ trend of falling prices for photovoltaic modules and the recently intensive investments in this branch, expectations for further price declines seem to become reality. Even quite conservative assumptions concerning price declines for photovoltaic systems, represented in Scenario 2, showed that the overall costs for photovoltaic systems can be lower than the overall costs for purchasing the electricity from the national grid. Scenario 3, a more optimistic outlook regarding price declines, showed huge possibilities for financially feasible photovoltaic applications. Table 52 and Table 53 sum up the core results with respect to the niches that were identified in the three sectors within all three scenarios.


Source: Own display

Potential


Range of

PV size



2 Chihuahua 9 14,941 67

3 Puebla 7 10,993 49

4 Poza Rica 6 9,994 45

5 Acapulco 5 7,713 35

54 89,622 403

Total 28 Cities 81 133,499 608

2%

1 Guadalajara 174 388,224 1,302 0.1 - 1.3

2 Cuautla 52 73,297 392 0.6 - 1.9

3 Chihuahua 50 60,298 376 0.1 - 2.9

4 Nogales 44 47,799 332 0.6 - 1.9

5 Puebla 41 89,854 306 0.1 - 1.3

362 659,471 2,708

Total 28 Cities 693 956,629 5,190

17%

1 Guadalajara 174 388,224 814 0.1 - 1.3

2 Mexicali 141 44,606 659 0.2 - 15.5

3 Monterrey 124 110,034 581 0.1 - 3.7

4 Cd. Juarez 88 86,143 413 0.1 - 3.7

5 Tampico 66 55,366 307 0.1 - 3.7

593 684,372 2,774

Total 28 Cities 1,336 1,486,362 6,255

27%

Scenario 3

"Optimistic


Scenario 1

"Current


Scenario 2

"Conservative


Scenario "Top 5"



103

Table 53: Size of niches in the industry and services sectors (micro-approach)

Source: Own display

This first detailed study on the financial feasibility of photovoltaic systems in Mexico offers quite some interesting and - in the mid-term - promising results. However, in order to further improve the information generated for decision makers additional research should be carried out. In particular, there is a need to analyse the actual performance of photovoltaic systems of different sizes in Mexico. Furthermore, it would be helpful to consider representative consumption volumes for different household sizes and business branches, which still need to be identified, in order to improve the estimation of market niches. In general, the coverage of the industry and services sectors should be improved. Finally, it seems highly important to carry out a more detailed analysis which kind of mechanisms would be the most attractive from a government’s perspective to promote the use of grid connected photolvoltaic systems in Mexico. For the time being, the excel-model developed for this study features two quite quick and easy tools that enable potential investors in the household as well as in the industry and services sectors to calculate for their individual case whether a photovoltaic system is or not cost-saving (available at: www.conuee.gob.mx).


Potential enterprises

[#] 0 2,557,478 2,716,943

Percentage on overall

enterprises [%] 0 93 98

http://www.conuee.gob.mx/


Annex

105

Annex

Annex 1: Calculation of theoretically required Mexican territory for 100% PV coverage

Source: Own display

Photovoltaic data

a Performance ratio 73 %

b Efficiency 10 %

Mexico data

c Final electricity consumption 611.13 PJ/a

d Mexican territory 1,984,375,000,000.00 m2

e Radiation global, daily 5.00 kWh/m2d

f Radiation global, annual 1,825.00 kWh/m2a

g Electricity produced by PV systems (1) f*a*b 133.23 kWh/m2a

h Electricity produced by PV systems (2) g*3600/1*E12

0.0000004796 PJ/m2a

i Necessary PV area c/h 1,274,212,380.89 m2

j Percentage of total territory i*100/d 0.064 %


Annex

106

Annex 2: Residential tariffs

Tariff 1



Basic 1-75 0.621 0.623 0.625 0.627 0.629 0.631 0.633 0.635 0.637 0.639 0.641 0.643

Intermediate 0.735 0.737 0.739 0.741 0.743 0.745 0.747 0.749 0.751 0.753 0.755 0.757



Basic 1-75 0.621 0.623 0.625 0.627 0.629 0.631 0.633 0.635 0.637 0.639 0.641 0.643

Intermediate 76-125 1.022 1.025 1.028 1.031 1.034 1.037 1.040 1.043 1.046 1.049 1.052 1.055

Exceeding 2.164 2.171 2.178 2.185 2.192 2.199 2.206 2.213 2.220 2.227 2.234 2.241

Tariff 1A

SUMMER SEASON



Basic 1-100 0.541 0.543 0.545 0.547 0.549 0.551 0.553 0.555 0.557 0.559 0.561 0.563

Intermediate 0.642 0.644 0.646 0.648 0.650 0.652 0.654 0.656 0.658 0.660 0.662 0.664



Basic 1-100 0.541 0.543 0.545 0.547 0.549 0.551 0.553 0.555 0.557 0.559 0.561 0.563

Intermediate 101-150 0.812 0.815 0.818 0.821 0.824 0.827 0.830 0.833 0.836 0.839 0.842 0.845

Exceeding 2.164 2.171 2.178 2.185 2.192 2.199 2.206 2.213 2.220 2.227 2.234 2.241

WINTER SEASON



Basic 1-75 0.621 0.623 0.625 0.627 0.629 0.631 0.633 0.635 0.637 0.639 0.641 0.643

Intermediate 0.735 0.737 0.739 0.741 0.743 0.745 0.747 0.749 0.751 0.753 0.755 0.757



Basic 1-75 0.621 0.623 0.625 0.627 0.629 0.631 0.633 0.635 0.637 0.639 0.641 0.643

Intermediate 76-125 1.022 1.025 1.028 1.031 1.034 1.037 1.040 1.043 1.046 1.049 1.052 1.055

Exceeding 2.164 2.171 2.178 2.185 2.192 2.199 2.206 2.213 2.220 2.227 2.234 2.241

Tariff 1B

SUMMER SEASON



Basic 1-125 0.541 0.543 0.545 0.547 0.549 0.551 0.553 0.555 0.557 0.559 0.561 0.563

Intermediate 0.642 0.644 0.646 0.648 0.650 0.652 0.654 0.656 0.658 0.660 0.662 0.664



Basic 1-125 0.541 0.543 0.545 0.547 0.549 0.551 0.553 0.555 0.557 0.559 0.561 0.563

Intermediate 126-200 0.812 0.815 0.818 0.821 0.824 0.827 0.830 0.833 0.836 0.839 0.842 0.845

Exceeding 2.164 2.171 2.178 2.185 2.192 2.199 2.206 2.213 2.220 2.227 2.234 2.241

WINTER SEASON



Basic 1-75 0.621 0.623 0.625 0.627 0.629 0.631 0.633 0.635 0.637 0.639 0.641 0.643

Intermediate 0.735 0.737 0.739 0.741 0.743 0.745 0.747 0.749 0.751 0.753 0.755 0.757



Intermediate 1-75 0.621 0.623 0.625 0.627 0.629 0.631 0.633 0.635 0.637 0.639 0.641 0.643

Intermediate 76-150 1.022 1.025 1.028 1.031 1.034 1.037 1.040 1.043 1.046 1.049 1.052 1.055

Exceeding 2.164 2.171 2.178 2.185 2.192 2.199 2.206 2.213 2.220 2.227 2.234 2.241


Annex

107

Tariff 1C

SUMMER SEASON



Basic 1-150 0.541 0.543 0.545 0.547 0.549 0.551 0.553 0.555 0.557 0.559 0.561 0.563

Intermediate 0.642 0.644 0.646 0.648 0.650 0.652 0.654 0.656 0.658 0.660 0.662 0.664



Basic 1-150 0.541 0.543 0.545 0.547 0.549 0.551 0.553 0.555 0.557 0.559 0.561 0.563

Intermediate 151-450 0.812 0.815 0.818 0.821 0.824 0.827 0.830 0.833 0.836 0.839 0.842 0.845

Exceeding 2.164 2.171 2.178 2.185 2.192 2.199 2.206 2.213 2.220 2.227 2.234 2.241

WINTER SEASON



Basic 1-75 0.621 0.623 0.625 0.627 0.629 0.631 0.633 0.635 0.637 0.639 0.641 0.643

Intermediate 0.735 0.737 0.739 0.741 0.743 0.745 0.747 0.749 0.751 0.753 0.755 0.757



Basic 1-75 0.621 0.623 0.625 0.627 0.629 0.631 0.633 0.635 0.637 0.639 0.641 0.643

Intermediate 76-150 1.022 1.025 1.028 1.031 1.034 1.037 1.040 1.043 1.046 1.049 1.052 1.055

Exceeding 2.164 2.171 2.178 2.185 2.192 2.199 2.206 2.213 2.220 2.227 2.234 2.241

Tariff 1D

SUMMER SEASON



Basic 1-175 0.541 0.543 0.545 0.547 0.549 0.551 0.553 0.555 0.557 0.559 0.561 0.563

Intermediate 0.642 0.644 0.646 0.648 0.650 0.652 0.654 0.656 0.658 0.660 0.662 0.664



Basic 1-175 0.541 0.543 0.545 0.547 0.549 0.551 0.553 0.555 0.557 0.559 0.561 0.563

Intermediate 176-600 0.812 0.815 0.818 0.821 0.824 0.827 0.830 0.833 0.836 0.839 0.842 0.845

Exceeding 2.164 2.171 2.178 2.185 2.192 2.199 2.206 2.213 2.220 2.227 2.234 2.241

WINTER SEASON



Basic 1-75 0.621 0.623 0.625 0.627 0.629 0.631 0.633 0.635 0.637 0.639 0.641 0.643

Intermediate 0.735 0.737 0.739 0.741 0.743 0.745 0.747 0.749 0.751 0.753 0.755 0.757



Basic 1-75 0.621 0.623 0.625 0.627 0.629 0.631 0.633 0.635 0.637 0.639 0.641 0.643

Intermediate 76-175 1.022 1.025 1.028 1.031 1.034 1.037 1.040 1.043 1.046 1.049 1.052 1.055

Exceeding 2.164 2.171 2.178 2.185 2.192 2.199 2.206 2.213 2.220 2.227 2.234 2.241


Annex

108

Source: www.cfe.gob.mx/es/InformacionAlCliente/conocetutarifa/

Tariff 1E

SUMMER SEASON



Basic 1-300 0.441 0.442 0.443 0.444 0.445 0.446 0.447 0.448 0.449 0.450 0.451 0.452

Intermediate 0.572 0.574 0.576 0.578 0.580 0.582 0.584 0.586 0.588 0.590 0.592 0.594



Basic 1-300 0.441 0.442 0.443 0.444 0.445 0.446 0.447 0.448 0.449 0.450 0.451 0.452

Intermediate 301-900 0.729 0.731 0.733 0.735 0.737 0.739 0.741 0.743 0.745 0.747 0.749 0.751

Exceeding 2.164 2.171 2.178 2.185 2.192 2.199 2.206 2.213 2.220 2.227 2.234 2.241

WINTER SEASON



Basic 1-75 0.621 0.623 0.625 0.627 0.629 0.631 0.633 0.635 0.637 0.639 0.641 0.643

Intermediate 76-200 0.735 0.737 0.739 0.741 0.743 0.745 0.747 0.749 0.751 0.753 0.755 0.757

Exceeding 2.164 2.171 2.178 2.185 2.192 2.199 2.206 2.213 2.220 2.227 2.234 2.241



Basic 1-75 0.621 0.623 0.625 0.627 0.629 0.631 0.633 0.635 0.637 0.639 0.641 0.643

Intermediate 76-200 1.022 1.025 1.028 1.031 1.034 1.037 1.040 1.043 1.046 1.049 1.052 1.055

Exceeding 2.164 2.171 2.178 2.185 2.192 2.199 2.206 2.213 2.220 2.227 2.234 2.241

Tariff 1F

SUMMER SEASON

Consumption of up to 1,200 kWh per month


Basic 1-300 0.441 0.442 0.443 0.444 0.445 0.446 0.447 0.448 0.449 0.450 0.451 0.452

Exceeding 0.572 0.574 0.576 0.578 0.580 0.582 0.584 0.586 0.588 0.590 0.592 0.594

Consumption exceeding 1,200 kWh per month


Basic 1-300 0.441 0.442 0.443 0.444 0.445 0.446 0.447 0.448 0.449 0.450 0.451 0.452

Intermediate Low 301-1,200 0.729 0.731 0.733 0.735 0.737 0.739 0.741 0.743 0.745 0.747 0.749 0.751

Intermediate High 1,201-2,500 1.360 1.364 1.368 1.372 1.376 1.380 1.385 1.390 1.395 1.400 1.405 1.410

Exceeding 2.164 2.171 2.178 2.185 2.192 2.199 2.206 2.213 2.220 2.227 2.234 2.241

WINTER SEASON



Basic 1-75 0.621 0.623 0.625 0.627 0.629 0.631 0.633 0.635 0.637 0.639 0.641 0.643

Intermediate 76-200 0.735 0.737 0.739 0.741 0.743 0.745 0.747 0.749 0.751 0.753 0.755 0.757

Exceeding 2.164 2.171 2.178 2.185 2.192 2.199 2.206 2.213 2.220 2.227 2.234 2.241



Basic 1-75 0.621 0.623 0.625 0.627 0.629 0.631 0.633 0.635 0.637 0.639 0.641 0.643

Intermediate 76-200 1.022 1.025 1.028 1.031 1.034 1.037 1.040 1.043 1.046 1.049 1.052 1.055

Exceeding 2.164 2.171 2.178 2.185 2.192 2.199 2.206 2.213 2.220 2.227 2.234 2.241


Annex

109

Annex 3: DAC electricity prices (2007) (residential sector)


At the time of the elaboration of the study the DAC prices of September to December where not available. These prices were assumed on the basis of the prices of the respective months of the year 2006 considering the rate of price increase.

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Baja California

Summer 2.46 2.39 2.38 2.38 2.40 2.44 2.49 2.54 2.55 2.55 2.51 2.49

Winter 2.12 2.06 2.05 2.05 2.07 2.10 2.15 2.19 2.19 2.20 2.16 2.15

Baja California South

Summer 2.69 2.61 2.59 2.60 2.62 2.66 2.72 2.78 2.78 2.78 2.73 2.72

Winter 2.12 2.06 2.05 2.05 2.07 2.10 2.15 2.19 2.19 2.20 2.16 2.15

Northwest 2.37 2.30 2.29 2.29 2.32 2.35 2.40 2.45 2.45 2.45 2.41 2.40

North and Northeast 2.31 2.24 2.23 2.23 2.25 2.28 2.34 2.39 2.39 2.39 2.35 2.34

South and Peninsular 2.35 2.28 2.27 2.27 2.29 2.32 2.38 2.43 2.43 2.43 2.39 2.38

Central 2.54 2.46 2.45 2.45 2.48 2.51 2.57 2.62 2.62 2.62 2.58 2.57

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

58.61 56.95 56.63 56.68 57.24 57.99 59.35 60.60 60.62 60.67 59.63 59.30

Fix charge ($/month)

RegionCharges for energy consumption ($/kWh)



Annex

110

Annex 4: Allocation of intervals for tariffs H-S/H-SL (industry and services sectors)

Source: http://www.cfe.gob.mx/aplicaciones/ccfe/tarifas/tarifas/Tarifas.asp?Tarifa=HS

Annex 5: FRI and FRB values for tariffs H-S/H-SL (industry and services sectors)

Source: http://www.cfe.gob.mx/aplicaciones/ccfe/tarifas/tarifas/Tarifas.asp?Tarifa=HS


Monday to Friday 0:00 - 6:00 6:00 - 19:00 19:00 - 22:00

22:00 - 24:00


Monday to Friday 1:00 - 6:00 0:00 - 1:00 20:00 - 22:00

6:00 - 20:00

22:00 - 24:00


Monday to Friday 0:00 - 6:00 6:00 - 19:00 19:00 - 22:00

22:00 - 24:00


Monday to Friday 0:00 - 6:00 6:00 - 18:00 18:00 - 22:00

22:00 - 24:00

From the first February until the Saturday before the first Sunday of

April

From the first Sunday of April until the 31 of July

From the first of August until the Saturday before the last Sunday of

October

From the last Sunday of October until the 31 of January

Region FRI FRB



Central 0.200 0.100



North 0.200 0.100


South 0.200 0.100


Annex

111

Annex 6: Allocation of intervals for tariffs H-T/H-TL (industry and services sectors)

Source: http://www.cfe.gob.mx/aplicaciones/ccfe/tarifas/tarifas/Tarifas.asp?Tarifa=HT

Annex 7: FRI and FRB values for tariffs H-T/H-TL (industry and services sectors)

Source: http://www.cfe.gob.mx/aplicaciones/ccfe/tarifas/tarifas/Tarifas.asp?Tarifa=HT


Monday to Friday 0:00 - 6:00 6:00 - 19:30 19:30 - 22:30

22:30 - 24:00


Monday to Friday 1:00 - 6:00 0:00 - 1:00 20:30 - 22:30

6:00 - 20:30

22:30 - 24:00


Monday to Friday 0:00 - 6:00 6:00 - 19:30 19:30 - 22:30

22:30 - 24:00


Monday to Friday 0:00 - 6:00 6:00 - 18:30 18:30 - 22:30

22:30 - 24:00

From the first February until the Saturday before the first Sunday of

April

From the first Sunday of April until the 31 of July

From the first of August until the Saturday before the last Sunday of

October

From the last Sunday of October until the 31 of January

Region FRI FRB



Central 0.100 0.050



North 0.100 0.050


South 0.100 0.050


Annex

112

Annex 8: Low, medium and high voltage tariffs (2007) (industry and services sectors)

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dec

Basic 1 - 50 1.724 1.675 1.665 1.666 1.682 1.704 1.744 1.781 1.808 1.822 1.834 1.853

Intermediate 51 - 100 2.082 2.023 2.011 2.013 2.033 2.060 2.108 2.152 2.185 2.202 2.217 2.240

Exceeding 2.296 2.231 2.218 2.220 2.242 2.271 2.324 2.373 2.409 2.427 2.443 2.468

Monthly 44.200 42.940 42.700 42.740 43.160 43.730 44.760 45.700 46.400 46.750 47.060 47.540


200.670 194.970 193.860 194.030 195.950 198.520 203.190 207.460 210.630 212.230 213.630 215.830

Monthly 1.264 1.228 1.221 1.222 1.234 1.250 1.279 1.306 1.326 1.336 1.345 1.359


Demand charge ($/kW) 98.460 95.090 94.860 94.990 105.800 107.620 110.540 113.180 115.050 105.190 106.010 107.290

Price per kilowatt-hour ($/kWh) 0.752 0.726 0.724 0.725 0.892 0.907 0.932 0.954 0.970 0.803 0.809 0.819

Demand charge ($/kW) 107.130 103.470 103.220 103.360 117.190 119.210 122.440 125.370 127.440 114.470 115.360 116.760


Demand charge ($/kW) 115.380 111.430 111.160 111.320 112.380 114.310 117.410 120.220 122.200 123.290 124.250 125.750


Demand charge ($/kW) 122.920 118.720 118.440 118.610 119.740 121.800 125.100 128.090 130.200 131.360 132.380 133.980


Demand charge ($/kW) 113.030 109.160 108.900 109.050 110.090 111.980 115.010 117.760 119.700 120.770 121.710 123.180


Demand charge ($/kW) 113.470 109.590 109.330 109.480 110.520 112.420 115.470 118.230 120.180 121.250 122.200 123.680


Demand charge ($/kW) 126.860 122.520 122.230 122.400 123.560 125.690 129.100 132.190 134.370 135.570 136.630 138.280


Demand charge ($/kW) 122.920 118.720 118.440 118.610 119.740 121.800 125.100 128.090 130.200 131.360 132.380 133.980


Tariff 2

Central

Northeast

Northwest

Fix charge ($)

Tariff O-M

Peninsular

Price per kilowatt-hour ($/kWh)

Fix charge ($)

Tariff 3

Price per kilowatt-hour ($/kWh)

North

Baja California

Baja California Sur

South


Annex

113


Demand charge ($/kW) 183.700 177.420 176.990 177.240 178.920 182.000 186.930 191.400 194.560 196.290 197.820 200.210

Peak price ($/kWh) 2.511 2.425 2.419 2.422 2.445 2.487 2.555 2.616 2.659 2.683 2.704 2.736

Intermediate price ($/kWh) 0.695 0.671 0.669 0.670 0.677 0.688 0.707 0.724 0.736 0.742 0.748 0.757

Base price ($/kWh) 0.546 0.527 0.526 0.527 0.532 0.541 0.556 0.569 0.578 0.583 0.588 0.595

Demand charge ($/kW) 176.550 170.510 170.100 170.340 171.960 174.920 179.660 183.950 186.990 188.650 190.120 192.420

Peak price ($/kWh) 2.014 1.945 1.941 1.943 1.962 1.996 2.050 2.099 2.133 2.152 2.169 2.195


Base price ($/kWh) 0.683 0.659 0.658 0.659 0.665 0.676 0.695 0.711 0.723 0.729 0.735 0.744

Demand charge ($/kW) 127.340 122.980 122.680 122.850 124.020 126.150 129.570 132.670 134.860 136.060 137.120 138.780

Peak price ($/kWh) 2.406 2.324 2.318 2.322 2.344 2.384 2.449 2.507 2.548 2.571 2.591 2.623


Base price ($/kWh) 0.643 0.621 0.620 0.620 0.626 0.637 0.654 0.670 0.681 0.687 0.693 0.701

Demand charge ($/kW) 117.080 113.080 112.810 112.970 114.040 116.000 119.140 121.990 124.000 125.100 126.080 127.610

Peak price ($/kWh) 2.222 2.146 2.141 2.144 2.165 2.202 2.262 2.316 2.354 2.375 2.393 2.422


Base price ($/kWh) 0.585 0.565 0.564 0.565 0.570 0.580 0.596 0.610 0.620 0.626 0.630 0.638

Demand charge ($/kW) 119.560 115.470 115.190 115.350 116.450 118.450 121.660 124.570 126.630 127.760 128.760 130.320

Peak price ($/kWh) 2.235 2.159 2.154 2.157 2.177 2.215 2.275 2.329 2.367 2.389 2.407 2.436


Base price ($/kWh) 0.594 0.574 0.573 0.573 0.579 0.589 0.605 0.619 0.630 0.635 0.640 0.648

Demand charge ($/kW) 117.630 113.610 113.340 113.500 114.580 116.550 119.710 122.570 124.590 125.700 126.680 128.210

Peak price ($/kWh) 2.239 2.162 2.157 2.160 2.180 2.218 2.278 2.332 2.371 2.392 2.411 2.440


Base price ($/kWh) 0.587 0.567 0.566 0.566 0.572 0.582 0.597 0.612 0.622 0.627 0.632 0.640

Demand charge ($/kW) 131.550 127.050 126.750 126.930 128.140 130.340 133.870 137.070 139.330 140.570 141.670 143.380

Peak price ($/kWh) 2.354 2.274 2.268 2.271 2.293 2.332 2.395 2.453 2.493 2.515 2.535 2.566


Base price ($/kWh) 0.596 0.575 0.574 0.575 0.580 0.590 0.606 0.621 0.631 0.636 0.641 0.649

Demand charge ($/kW) 127.340 122.980 122.680 122.850 124.020 126.150 129.570 132.670 134.860 136.060 137.120 138.780

Peak price ($/kWh) 2.357 2.276 2.270 2.274 2.295 2.335 2.398 2.455 2.496 2.518 2.538 2.568


Base price ($/kWh) 0.612 0.591 0.589 0.590 0.596 0.606 0.622 0.637 0.648 0.654 0.659 0.667


Demand charge ($/kW) 165.390 159.730 159.350 159.570 161.090 163.860 168.300 172.320 175.160 176.720 178.100 180.260

Peak price ($/kWh) 3.646 3.521 3.512 3.517 3.551 3.612 3.710 3.798 3.861 3.896 3.926 3.973


Base price ($/kWh) 0.546 0.527 0.526 0.527 0.532 0.541 0.556 0.569 0.578 0.583 0.588 0.595

Demand charge ($/kW) 71.760 69.310 69.140 69.240 69.900 71.100 73.030 74.780 76.010 76.690 77.290 78.230

Peak price ($/kWh) 1.884 1.820 1.815 1.818 1.835 1.867 1.917 1.963 1.996 2.013 2.029 2.054


Base price ($/kWh) 0.761 0.735 0.734 0.735 0.742 0.754 0.775 0.793 0.806 0.814 0.820 0.830

Central

Northeast

Baja California

South

Tariff H-MC

Baja California Sur

Tariff H-M

Northwest

North

Peninsular

Baja California

Northwest


Annex

114


Demand charge ($/kW) 149.950 143.770 144.000 144.290 145.600 148.820 153.490 157.660 160.480 162.170 163.690 166.010

Peak price ($/kWh) 2.857 2.739 2.743 2.749 2.774 2.835 2.924 3.004 3.058 3.090 3.119 3.163

Semipeak price ($/kWh) 1.238 1.187 1.189 1.192 1.202 1.229 1.268 1.302 1.325 1.339 1.352 1.371


Base price ($/kWh) 0.565 0.542 0.543 0.544 0.549 0.561 0.579 0.594 0.605 0.611 0.617 0.626

Demand charge ($/kW) 162.380 155.690 155.940 156.250 157.670 161.150 166.210 170.730 173.790 175.610 177.260 179.780

Peak price ($/kWh) 2.044 1.960 1.963 1.967 1.985 2.029 2.092 2.149 2.188 2.211 2.232 2.263


Base price ($/kWh) 0.698 0.669 0.670 0.671 0.677 0.692 0.714 0.733 0.747 0.754 0.761 0.772

Demand charge ($/kW) 84.710 81.220 81.350 81.510 82.250 84.070 86.710 89.070 90.660 91.610 92.470 93.780

Peak price ($/kWh) 2.771 2.657 2.661 2.667 2.691 2.751 2.837 2.914 2.966 2.997 3.026 3.069


Base price ($/kWh) 0.657 0.630 0.631 0.632 0.638 0.652 0.672 0.690 0.703 0.710 0.717 0.727

Demand charge ($/kW) 83.210 79.780 79.910 80.070 80.800 82.590 85.180 87.500 89.070 90.010 90.860 92.150

Peak price ($/kWh) 2.689 2.579 2.583 2.588 2.611 2.669 2.753 2.828 2.878 2.909 2.936 2.978


Base price ($/kWh) 0.601 0.576 0.577 0.578 0.584 0.597 0.615 0.632 0.643 0.650 0.656 0.666

Demand charge ($/kW) 84.450 80.970 81.100 81.260 82.000 83.810 86.440 88.790 90.380 91.330 92.190 93.500

Peak price ($/kWh) 2.693 2.582 2.586 2.591 2.615 2.673 2.757 2.832 2.882 2.913 2.940 2.982


Base price ($/kWh) 0.607 0.582 0.583 0.584 0.589 0.602 0.621 0.638 0.649 0.656 0.662 0.672

Demand charge ($/kW) 83.680 80.230 80.360 80.520 81.250 83.050 85.660 87.990 89.570 90.510 91.360 92.660

Peak price ($/kWh) 2.704 2.592 2.596 2.601 2.625 2.683 2.767 2.843 2.894 2.924 2.951 2.993


Base price ($/kWh) 0.598 0.574 0.575 0.576 0.581 0.594 0.612 0.629 0.640 0.647 0.653 0.662

Demand charge ($/kW) 86.150 82.600 82.730 82.900 83.650 85.500 88.180 90.580 92.200 93.170 94.050 95.390

Peak price ($/kWh) 2.693 2.582 2.586 2.591 2.615 2.673 2.757 2.832 2.882 2.913 2.940 2.982


Base price ($/kWh) 0.603 0.578 0.579 0.580 0.585 0.598 0.617 0.634 0.645 0.652 0.658 0.667

Demand charge ($/kW) 84.710 81.220 81.350 81.510 82.250 84.070 86.710 89.070 90.660 91.610 92.470 93.780

Peak price ($/kWh) 2.708 2.596 2.600 2.606 2.629 2.687 2.772 2.847 2.898 2.929 2.956 2.998


Base price ($/kWh) 0.614 0.588 0.589 0.590 0.596 0.609 0.628 0.645 0.657 0.664 0.670 0.679

Level subtransmission

Northeast

Baja California

Baja California Sur

Central

Northwest

North

Tariff H-S

Peninsular

South


Annex

115


Demand charge ($/kW) 224.820 215.560 215.900 216.330 218.300 223.120 230.130 236.390 240.620 243.150 245.440 248.930

Peak price ($/kWh) 2.135 2.047 2.050 2.055 2.073 2.119 2.186 2.245 2.285 2.309 2.331 2.364



Base price ($/kWh) 0.565 0.542 0.543 0.544 0.549 0.561 0.579 0.594 0.605 0.611 0.617 0.626

Demand charge ($/kW) 194.770 186.750 187.050 187.420 189.130 193.310 199.380 204.800 208.470 210.660 212.640 215.660

Peak price ($/kWh) 1.862 1.785 1.788 1.791 1.808 1.848 1.906 1.957 1.992 2.013 2.032 2.061


Base price ($/kWh) 0.698 0.669 0.670 0.671 0.677 0.692 0.714 0.733 0.747 0.754 0.761 0.772

Demanda Facturable ($/kW) 127.010 121.780 121.970 122.210 123.320 126.050 130.010 133.550 135.940 137.370 138.660 140.630

Energía Punta ($/kWh) 1.969 1.888 1.891 1.895 1.912 1.955 2.016 2.071 2.108 2.130 2.150 2.180

Energía Intermedia ($/kWh) 0.719 0.690 0.691 0.692 0.699 0.714 0.736 0.756 0.770 0.778 0.785 0.796

Energía Base ($/kWh) 0.657 0.630 0.631 0.632 0.638 0.652 0.672 0.690 0.703 0.710 0.717 0.727

Demand charge ($/kW) 124.850 119.710 119.900 120.140 121.230 123.910 127.800 131.280 133.630 135.030 136.300 138.240

Peak price ($/kWh) 1.901 1.823 1.826 1.830 1.846 1.887 1.947 1.999 2.035 2.057 2.076 2.105


Base price ($/kWh) 0.601 0.576 0.577 0.578 0.584 0.597 0.615 0.632 0.643 0.650 0.656 0.666

Demand charge ($/kW) 126.670 121.450 121.640 121.880 122.990 125.710 129.660 133.190 135.570 136.990 138.280 140.240

Peak price ($/kWh) 1.894 1.816 1.819 1.822 1.839 1.879 1.938 1.991 2.027 2.048 2.067 2.097


Base price ($/kWh) 0.607 0.582 0.583 0.584 0.589 0.602 0.621 0.638 0.649 0.656 0.662 0.672

Demand charge ($/kW) 125.480 120.310 120.500 120.740 121.840 124.530 128.440 131.930 134.290 135.700 136.980 138.930

Peak price ($/kWh) 1.911 1.833 1.835 1.839 1.856 1.897 1.956 2.010 2.046 2.067 2.087 2.116


Base price ($/kWh) 0.598 0.574 0.575 0.576 0.581 0.594 0.612 0.629 0.640 0.647 0.653 0.662

Demand charge ($/kW) 129.180 123.860 124.060 124.310 125.440 128.210 132.240 135.840 138.270 139.720 141.030 143.030

Peak price ($/kWh) 1.878 1.800 1.803 1.807 1.823 1.864 1.922 1.974 2.010 2.031 2.050 2.079


Base price ($/kWh) 0.603 0.578 0.579 0.580 0.585 0.598 0.617 0.634 0.645 0.652 0.658 0.667

Demand charge ($/kW) 127.010 121.780 121.970 122.210 123.320 126.050 130.010 133.550 135.940 137.370 138.660 140.630

Peak price ($/kWh) 1.906 1.828 1.831 1.834 1.851 1.892 1.951 2.005 2.040 2.062 2.081 2.111


Base price ($/kWh) 0.614 0.588 0.589 0.590 0.596 0.609 0.628 0.645 0.657 0.664 0.670 0.679

North

Baja California

Tariff H-SL

Baja California Sur

Central

Northeast

Northwest

Peninsular

South


Annex

116


Demand charge ($/kW) 140.180 134.400 134.620 134.890 136.120 139.130 143.500 147.400 150.040 151.620 153.050 155.220

Peak price ($/kWh) 2.726 2.614 2.618 2.623 2.647 2.706 2.791 2.867 2.918 2.949 2.976 3.019



Base price ($/kWh) 0.557 0.534 0.535 0.536 0.541 0.553 0.571 0.586 0.597 0.603 0.609 0.617

Demand charge ($/kW) 124.800 119.660 119.850 120.090 121.180 123.860 127.750 131.220 133.570 134.970 136.240 138.170

Peak price ($/kWh) 2.195 2.104 2.108 2.112 2.131 2.178 2.247 2.308 2.349 2.374 2.396 2.430


Base price ($/kWh) 0.678 0.650 0.651 0.652 0.658 0.672 0.694 0.712 0.725 0.733 0.740 0.750

Demand charge ($/kW) 73.800 70.760 70.870 71.010 71.660 73.240 75.540 77.590 78.980 79.810 80.560 81.700

Peak price ($/kWh) 2.712 2.600 2.605 2.610 2.633 2.692 2.776 2.852 2.903 2.933 2.961 3.003


Base price ($/kWh) 0.639 0.613 0.614 0.615 0.621 0.635 0.655 0.672 0.684 0.692 0.698 0.708

Demand charge ($/kW) 73.800 70.760 70.870 71.010 71.660 73.240 75.540 77.590 78.980 79.810 80.560 81.700

Peak price ($/kWh) 2.650 2.540 2.545 2.550 2.573 2.630 2.712 2.786 2.836 2.866 2.893 2.934


Base price ($/kWh) 0.573 0.549 0.550 0.551 0.556 0.569 0.587 0.603 0.613 0.620 0.626 0.635

Demand charge ($/kW) 73.800 70.760 70.870 71.010 71.660 73.240 75.540 77.590 78.980 79.810 80.560 81.700

Peak price ($/kWh) 2.634 2.526 2.530 2.535 2.558 2.614 2.696 2.770 2.819 2.849 2.876 2.917


Base price ($/kWh) 0.585 0.561 0.562 0.563 0.568 0.581 0.599 0.615 0.626 0.633 0.639 0.648

Demand charge ($/kW) 73.800 70.760 70.870 71.010 71.660 73.240 75.540 77.590 78.980 79.810 80.560 81.700

Peak price ($/kWh) 2.651 2.542 2.546 2.551 2.574 2.631 2.714 2.787 2.837 2.867 2.894 2.935


Base price ($/kWh) 0.569 0.546 0.547 0.548 0.553 0.565 0.583 0.598 0.609 0.615 0.621 0.630

Demand charge ($/kW) 73.800 70.760 70.870 71.010 71.660 73.240 75.540 77.590 78.980 79.810 80.560 81.700

Peak price ($/kWh) 2.582 2.475 2.479 2.484 2.507 2.562 2.643 2.714 2.763 2.792 2.818 2.858


Base price ($/kWh) 0.569 0.545 0.546 0.547 0.552 0.565 0.582 0.598 0.609 0.615 0.621 0.630

Demand charge ($/kW) 73.800 70.760 70.870 71.010 71.660 73.240 75.540 77.590 78.980 79.810 80.560 81.700

Peak price ($/kWh) 2.648 2.539 2.543 2.548 2.571 2.628 2.711 2.784 2.834 2.864 2.891 2.932


Base price ($/kWh) 0.596 0.572 0.572 0.574 0.579 0.592 0.610 0.627 0.638 0.645 0.651 0.660

South

Northeast

Baja California

Level transmission

Tariff H-T

Northwest

North

Baja California Sur

Central

Peninsular


Annex

117



Demand charge ($/kW) 210.340 201.670 201.990 202.390 204.230 208.740 215.290 221.150 225.110 227.470 229.610 232.870

Peak price ($/kWh) 2.052 1.967 1.970 1.974 1.992 2.036 2.100 2.157 2.196 2.219 2.240 2.271



Base price ($/kWh) 0.557 0.534 0.535 0.536 0.541 0.553 0.571 0.586 0.597 0.603 0.609 0.617

Demand charge ($/kW) 187.160 179.450 179.740 180.100 181.740 185.760 191.590 196.800 200.320 202.420 204.320 207.220

Peak price ($/kWh) 1.813 1.738 1.741 1.745 1.761 1.800 1.856 1.907 1.941 1.961 1.979 2.008


Base price ($/kWh) 0.678 0.650 0.651 0.652 0.658 0.672 0.694 0.712 0.725 0.733 0.740 0.750

Demand charge ($/kW) 110.710 106.150 106.320 106.530 107.500 109.880 113.330 116.410 118.490 119.730 120.860 122.580

Peak price ($/kWh) 1.927 1.847 1.850 1.854 1.871 1.912 1.972 2.026 2.062 2.084 2.103 2.133


Base price ($/kWh) 0.639 0.613 0.614 0.615 0.621 0.635 0.655 0.672 0.684 0.692 0.698 0.708

Demand charge ($/kW) 110.710 106.150 106.320 106.530 107.500 109.880 113.330 116.410 118.490 119.730 120.860 122.580

Peak price ($/kWh) 1.865 1.788 1.791 1.794 1.811 1.851 1.909 1.961 1.996 2.017 2.036 2.065


Base price ($/kWh) 0.573 0.549 0.550 0.551 0.556 0.569 0.587 0.603 0.613 0.620 0.626 0.635

Demand charge ($/kW) 110.710 106.150 106.320 106.530 107.500 109.880 113.330 116.410 118.490 119.730 120.860 122.580

Peak price ($/kWh) 1.848 1.772 1.775 1.779 1.795 1.835 1.892 1.944 1.978 1.999 2.018 2.047


Base price ($/kWh) 0.585 0.561 0.562 0.563 0.568 0.581 0.599 0.615 0.626 0.633 0.639 0.648

Demand charge ($/kW) 110.710 106.150 106.320 106.530 107.500 109.880 113.330 116.410 118.490 119.730 120.860 122.580

Peak price ($/kWh) 1.865 1.788 1.791 1.795 1.811 1.851 1.909 1.961 1.996 2.017 2.036 2.065


Base price ($/kWh) 0.569 0.546 0.547 0.548 0.553 0.565 0.583 0.598 0.609 0.615 0.621 0.630

Demand charge ($/kW) 110.710 106.150 106.320 106.530 107.500 109.880 113.330 116.410 118.490 119.730 120.860 122.580

Peak price ($/kWh) 1.796 1.722 1.724 1.728 1.744 1.782 1.838 1.888 1.922 1.942 1.960 1.988


Base price ($/kWh) 0.569 0.545 0.546 0.547 0.552 0.565 0.582 0.598 0.609 0.615 0.621 0.630

Demand charge ($/kW) 110.710 106.150 106.320 106.530 107.500 109.880 113.330 116.410 118.490 119.730 120.860 122.580

Peak price ($/kWh) 1.863 1.786 1.789 1.793 1.809 1.849 1.907 1.959 1.994 2.015 2.034 2.063


Base price ($/kWh) 0.596 0.572 0.572 0.574 0.579 0.592 0.610 0.627 0.638 0.645 0.651 0.660

South

Northeast

Northwest

North

Peninsular

Central

Baja California Sur

Tariff H-TL

Baja California


Annex

118

Annex 9: Solar radiation data of selected cities

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Average

Durango 4.4 5.4 6.5 7.0 7.5 6.8 6.0 5.6 5.7 5.1 4.8 3.9 5.7

Oaxaca 4.9 5.7 5.8 5.5 6.0 5.4 5.9 5.6 5.0 4.9 4.8 4.4 5.3

Guadalajara 4.6 5.5 6.3 7.4 7.7 5.9 5.3 5.3 5.2 4.9 4.8 4.0 5.6

Puebla 4.9 5.5 6.2 6.4 6.1 5.7 5.8 5.8 5.2 5.0 4.7 4.4 5.5

Distrito Federal 4.4 5.2 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.1 4.9 4.9 4.7 4.4 4.2 3.8 4.9

Cuautla 3.2 3.9 4.7 5.5 5.7 5.4 5.4 5.3 4.6 4.4 3.7 3.1 4.6

Tepic 3.9 4.3 4.8 5.5 6.1 5.3 4.9 5.3 4.4 4.4 4.0 4.8 4.8

Nogales 3.1 3.9 5.2 6.5 7.0 7.0 6.1 5.6 5.2 4.3 3.5 2.9 5.5

Los Tuxtlas 3.5 4.4 5.6 6.6 6.5 5.8 5.8 5.6 4.9 4.6 3.9 3.4 5.5

Chihuahua 4.1 4.9 6.0 7.4 8.2 8.1 6.8 6.2 5.7 5.2 4.6 3.8 5.9

Acapulco 4.8 5.3 6.1 5.9 5.6 5.1 5.3 5.4 4.9 5.2 5.0 4.7 5.3

Poza Rica 3.1 4.0 5.0 5.9 6.4 6.1 5.8 5.9 5.1 4.8 3.3 3.1 5.3

Riviera Maya 4.1 5.0 5.8 6.6 6.3 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.3 4.8 4.3 3.9 5.4

Cd. Juárez 3.1 3.9 5.2 6.4 6.9 7.0 6.4 5.6 5.0 4.2 3.5 2.9 5.0

Monterrey 3.2 3.6 4.1 4.3 4.8 5.5 6.1 5.6 5.0 3.8 3.3 3.0 4.4

Tampico 3.3 4.1 4.7 6.4 5.0 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.6 4.6 3.7 3.2 4.5

Mérida 3.7 4.0 4.6 5.2 5.7 5.5 5.7 5.5 5.0 4.2 3.8 3.4 4.7

Mazatlán 3.9 4.8 5.4 5.7 5.7 5.6 4.8 4.9 4.7 5.0 4.5 3.9 4.9

La Paz 4.4 5.5 6.0 6.6 6.5 6.6 6.3 6.2 5.9 5.8 4.9 4.2 5.7

Matamoros 2.9 3.9 5.3 6.0 6.7 7.1 6.8 6.7 5.5 5.1 3.7 2.8 5.3

Cd. Altamirano 4.8 5.5 6.4 6.7 6.6 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.2 5.3 5.0 4.1 4.9

Radiation [kWh/m2/d]

1

1A

Tariff City

1B

1C

1D


Annex

119

Source: www.conae.gob.mx/wb/CONAE/CONA_1433_irradiacion_en_la_re

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Average

Culiacán 3.6 4.2 4.8 5.4 6.2 6.2 5.4 5.1 5.2 4.6 4.2 3.4 4.9

Guaymas 4.5 5.7 6.5 7.2 7.3 6.8 5.9 5.8 6.3 5.9 5.1 5.6 6.0

Reynosa 2.6 3.5 4.6 5.3 5.7 6.1 6.1 5.7 4.8 4.4 3.3 2.5 4.7

Piedras Negras 3.1 3.6 4.2 4.5 4.8 6.0 6.7 6.3 4.9 4.1 3.3 2.9 4.5

Mexicali 4.1 4.4 5.0 5.6 6.6 7.3 7.0 6.1 6.1 5.5 4.5 3.9 5.5

San Luis Río Colorado 3.4 3.8 4.9 6.2 7.3 7.4 6.9 6.1 5.1 4.1 3.3 2.8 5.0

Cd. Obregón 3.6 4.5 5.9 7.1 7.7 7.5 6.1 5.8 5.6 4.9 4.1 3.4 6.0

Hermosillo 4.0 4.6 5.4 6.6 8.3 8.6 6.9 6.6 6.7 6.0 4.7 3.9 6.0

5.2

Radiation [kWh/m2/d]

1F

Average

Tariff City

1E


Annex

120

Annex 10: DAC regions for selected cities (residential sector)

Durango North & Northeast

Oaxaca South & Peninsula

Guadalajara North & Northeast

Puebla South & Peninsula

Distrito Federal Central

Cuautla South & Peninsula

Tepic North & Northeast

Nogales North & Northeast

Los Tuxtlas South & Peninsula

Chihuahua North & Northeast

Acapulco South & Peninsula

Poza Rica North & Northeast

Riviera Maya South & Peninsula

Cd. Juárez North & Northeast

Monterrey North & Northeast

Tampico North & Northeast

Mérida South & Peninsula

Mazatlán Northwest

La Paz Baja California South

Matamoros North & Northeast

Cd. Altamirano South & Peninsula

1

1A

Tariff City DAC region

1B

1C

1D


Annex

121

Source: Own display

Culiacán Northwest

Guaymas Northwest

Reynosa North & Northeast

Piedras Negras North & Northeast

Mexicali Baja California

San Luis Río Colorado Northwest

Cd. Obregón Northwest

Hermosillo Northwest

1F

Tariff City DAC region

1E


Annex

122

Annex 11: PV system sizes for full supply (residential sector)

Average

consumption

per month of

PV user

Radiation

Efficiency

loss

factor Lt

Average

annually

generated

electricity

Annual

required

electricity

Required

PV area

Required

installed

PV

output

[kWh/month] [kWh/m2/d] [%] [kWh/m

2/a] [kWh/a] [m

2] [kWp]

140 5.73 244.07 1,380 5.7 0.90

249 5.73 244.07 2,688 11.0 1.76

250 5.73 244.07 2,700 11.1 1.77

300 5.73 244.07 3,300 13.5 2.16

140 5.33 227.02 1,380 6.1 0.97

249 5.33 227.02 2,688 11.8 1.89

250 5.33 227.02 2,700 11.9 1.90

300 5.33 227.02 3,300 14.5 2.33

140 5.58 237.67 1,380 5.8 0.93

249 5.58 237.67 2,688 11.3 1.81

250 5.58 237.67 2,700 11.4 1.82

300 5.58 237.67 3,300 13.9 2.22

140 5.48 233.41 1,380 5.9 0.95

249 5.48 233.41 2,688 11.5 1.84

250 5.48 233.41 2,700 11.6 1.85

300 5.48 233.41 3,300 14.1 2.26

140 4.91 209.25 1,380 6.6 1.06

249 4.91 209.25 2,688 12.8 2.06

250 4.91 209.25 2,700 12.9 2.06

300 4.91 209.25 3,300 15.8 2.52

150 4.58 195.04 1,500 7.7 1.23

299 4.58 195.04 3,288 16.9 2.70

300 4.58 195.04 3,300 16.9 2.71

360 4.58 195.04 4,020 20.6 3.30

150 4.81 204.99 1,500 7.3 1.17

299 4.81 204.99 3,288 16.0 2.57

300 4.81 204.99 3,300 16.1 2.58

360 4.81 204.99 4,020 19.6 3.14

150 5.03 214.30 1,500 7.0 1.12

299 5.03 214.30 3,288 15.3 2.45

300 5.03 214.30 3,300 15.4 2.46

360 5.03 214.30 4,020 18.8 3.00

150 5.05 215.29 1,500 7.0 1.11

299 5.05 215.29 3,288 15.3 2.44

300 5.05 215.29 3,300 15.3 2.45

360 5.05 215.29 4,020 18.7 2.99

Tariff City

1

Durango

Oaxaca

Guadalajara

Puebla

Distrito

Federal

1A

Cuautla

Tepic

Nogales

Los Tuxtlas


Annex

123

Average

consumption

per month of

PV user

Radiation

Efficiency

loss

factor Lt

Average

annually

generated

electricity

Annual

required

electricity

Required

PV area

Required

installed

PV

output


2/a] [kWh/a] [m

2] [kWp]

200 5.92 -0.8% 250.35 2,100 8.4 1.34

399 5.92 -0.8% 250.35 4,488 17.9 2.87

400 5.92 -0.8% 250.35 4,500 18.0 2.88

528 5.92 -0.8% 250.35 6,036 24.1 3.86

200 5.28 -0.8% 223.20 2,100 9.4 1.51

399 5.28 -0.8% 223.20 4,488 20.1 3.22

400 5.28 -0.8% 223.20 4,500 20.2 3.23

528 5.28 -0.8% 223.20 6,036 27.0 4.33

200 4.87 -0.8% 206.20 2,100 10.2 1.63

399 4.87 -0.8% 206.20 4,488 21.8 3.48

400 4.87 -0.8% 206.20 4,500 21.8 3.49

528 4.87 -0.8% 206.20 6,036 29.3 4.68

200 5.35 -0.8% 226.51 2,100 9.3 1.48

399 5.35 -0.8% 226.51 4,488 19.8 3.17

400 5.35 -0.8% 226.51 4,500 19.9 3.18

528 5.35 -0.8% 226.51 6,036 26.6 4.26

238 5.01 -1.3% 210.99 2,550 12.1 1.93

849 5.01 -1.3% 210.99 9,888 46.9 7.50

850 5.01 -1.3% 210.99 9,900 46.9 7.51

1067 5.01 -1.3% 210.99 12,504 59.3 9.48

238 4.36 -1.3% 183.48 2,550 13.9 2.22

849 4.36 -1.3% 183.48 9,888 53.9 8.62

850 4.36 -1.3% 183.48 9,900 54.0 8.63

1067 4.36 -1.3% 183.48 12,504 68.1 10.90

238 4.53 -1.3% 190.50 2,550 13.4 2.14

849 4.53 -1.3% 190.50 9,888 51.9 8.30

850 4.53 -1.3% 190.50 9,900 52.0 8.32

1067 4.53 -1.3% 190.50 12,504 65.6 10.50

238 4.69 -1.3% 197.51 2,550 12.9 2.07

849 4.69 -1.3% 197.51 9,888 50.1 8.01

850 4.69 -1.3% 197.51 9,900 50.1 8.02

1067 4.69 -1.3% 197.51 12,504 63.3 10.13

Tariff City

1B

Chihuahua

Acapulco

Poza Rica

Riviera Maya

1C

Cd. Juárez

Monterrey

Tampico

Mérida


Annex

124

Average

consumption

per month of

PV user

Radiation

Efficiency

loss

factor Lt

Average

annually

generated

electricity

Annual

required

electricity

Required

PV area

Required

installed

PV

output


2/a] [kWh/a] [m

2] [kWp]

300 4.91 -1.5% 206.11 3,300 16.0 2.56

999 4.91 -1.5% 206.11 11,688 56.7 9.07

1000 4.91 -1.5% 206.11 11,700 56.8 9.08

1320 4.91 -1.5% 206.11 15,540 75.4 12.06

300 5.74 -1.5% 241.11 3,300 13.7 2.19

999 5.74 -1.5% 241.11 11,688 48.5 7.76

1000 5.74 -1.5% 241.11 11,700 48.5 7.76

1320 5.74 -1.5% 241.11 15,540 64.5 10.31

300 5.21 -1.5% 218.68 3,300 15.1 2.41

999 5.21 -1.5% 218.68 11,688 53.4 8.55

1000 5.21 -1.5% 218.68 11,700 53.5 8.56

1320 5.21 -1.5% 218.68 15,540 71.1 11.37

300 5.58 -1.5% 234.49 3,300 14.1 2.25

999 5.58 -1.5% 234.49 11,688 49.8 7.97

1000 5.58 -1.5% 234.49 11,700 49.9 7.98

1320 5.58 -1.5% 234.49 15,540 66.3 10.60

500 4.86 -1.8% 203.50 5,700 28.0 4.48

1999 4.86 -1.8% 203.50 23,688 116.4 18.62

2000 4.86 -1.8% 203.50 23,700 116.5 18.63

2640 4.86 -1.8% 203.50 31,380 154.2 24.67

500 6.05 -1.8% 253.41 5,700 22.5 3.60

1999 6.05 -1.8% 253.41 23,688 93.5 14.96

2000 6.05 -1.8% 253.41 23,700 93.5 14.96

2640 6.05 -1.8% 253.41 31,380 123.8 19.81

500 4.54 -1.8% 190.27 5,700 30.0 4.79

1999 4.54 -1.8% 190.27 23,688 124.5 19.92

2000 4.54 -1.8% 190.27 23,700 124.6 19.93

2640 4.54 -1.8% 190.27 31,380 164.9 26.39

500 4.53 -1.8% 189.88 5,700 30.0 4.80

1999 4.53 -1.8% 189.88 23,688 124.8 19.96

2000 4.53 -1.8% 189.88 23,700 124.8 19.97

2640 4.53 -1.8% 189.88 31,380 165.3 26.44

Tariff City

1D

Mazatlán

La Paz

Matamoros

Cd. Altamirano

1E

Culiacán

Guaymas

Reynosa

Piedras

Negras


Annex

125

Source: Own display

Average

consumption

per month of

PV user

Radiation

Efficiency

loss

factor Lt

Average

annually

generated

electricity

Annual

required

electricity

Required

PV area

Required

installed

PV

output


2/a] [kWh/a] [m

2] [kWp]

725 5.51 -2.0% 230.13 8,400 36.5 5.84

2499 5.51 -2.0% 230.13 29,688 129.0 20.64

2750 5.51 -2.0% 230.13 32,700 142.1 22.73

870 5.51 -2.0% 230.13 10,140 44.1 7.05

725 5.10 -2.0% 213.14 8,400 39.4 6.31

2499 5.10 -2.0% 213.14 29,688 139.3 22.29

2750 5.10 -2.0% 213.14 32,700 153.4 24.55

870 5.10 -2.0% 213.14 10,140 47.6 7.61

725 5.51 -2.0% 230.20 8,400 36.5 5.84

2499 5.51 -2.0% 230.20 29,688 129.0 20.63

2750 5.51 -2.0% 230.20 32,700 142.0 22.73

870 5.51 -2.0% 230.20 10,140 44.0 7.05

725 6.03 -2.0% 251.72 8,400 33.4 5.34

2499 6.03 -2.0% 251.72 29,688 117.9 18.87

2750 6.03 -2.0% 251.72 32,700 129.9 20.78

870 6.03 -2.0% 251.72 10,140 40.3 6.45

Tariff City

1F

Mexicali

San Luis Rio

Colorado

Cd. Obregón

Hermosillo


Annex

126

Annex 12: PV system sizes for partial supply (residential sector)

Average

consume

per month of

PV user

Efficiency

loss

factor Lt

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecRequired

PV area

Required

installed

PV output

[kWh/month] [%] [m2]

249 7.07 5.76 4.79 4.44 4.15 4.57 5.18 5.55 5.46 6.10 6.48 7.98 5.51 0.89

250 7.13 5.81 4.83 4.48 4.19 4.62 5.23 5.61 5.51 6.16 6.54 8.05 5.56 0.89

300 3.24 2.64 2.20 2.04 1.90 2.10 2.38 2.55 2.50 2.80 2.97 3.66 3.66 0.59

249 6.35 5.46 5.36 5.66 5.18 5.76 5.27 5.55 6.22 6.35 6.48 7.07 5.71 0.92

250 6.41 5.51 5.41 5.71 5.23 5.81 5.32 5.61 6.28 6.41 6.54 7.13 5.76 0.93

300 2.91 2.50 2.46 2.59 2.38 2.64 2.42 2.55 2.85 2.91 2.97 3.24 2.62 0.42

249 6.76 5.66 4.94 4.20 4.04 5.27 5.87 5.87 5.98 6.35 6.48 7.78 5.87 0.94

250 6.82 5.71 4.98 4.24 4.08 5.32 5.92 5.92 6.04 6.41 6.54 7.85 5.92 0.95

300 3.10 2.59 2.26 1.93 1.85 2.42 2.69 2.69 2.74 2.91 2.97 3.57 2.69 0.44

249 6.35 5.66 5.02 4.86 5.10 5.46 5.36 5.36 5.98 6.22 6.62 7.07 5.56 0.89

250 6.41 5.71 5.06 4.91 5.15 5.51 5.41 5.41 6.04 6.28 6.68 7.13 5.61 0.90

300 2.91 2.59 2.30 2.23 2.34 2.50 2.46 2.46 2.74 2.85 3.04 3.24 2.55 0.41

249 7.07 5.98 5.36 5.36 5.46 6.10 6.35 6.35 6.62 7.07 7.41 8.19 6.35 1.02

250 7.13 6.04 5.41 5.41 5.51 6.16 6.41 6.41 6.68 7.13 7.47 8.26 6.41 1.03

300 3.24 2.74 2.46 2.46 2.50 2.80 2.91 2.91 3.04 3.24 3.40 3.76 2.91 0.47

299 13.29 10.90 9.05 7.73 7.46 7.87 7.87 8.02 9.24 9.66 11.49 13.72 9.15 1.47

300 13.38 10.98 9.11 7.78 7.51 7.93 7.93 8.08 9.31 9.73 11.57 13.81 9.21 1.48

360 5.35 4.39 3.64 3.11 3.00 3.17 3.17 3.23 3.72 3.89 4.63 5.52 3.68 0.59

299 10.90 9.89 8.86 7.73 6.97 8.02 8.68 8.02 9.66 9.66 10.63 8.86 8.86 1.42

300 10.98 9.96 8.92 7.78 7.02 8.08 8.74 8.08 9.73 9.73 10.70 8.92 8.92 1.43

360 4.39 3.98 3.57 3.11 2.81 3.23 3.49 3.23 3.89 3.89 4.28 3.57 3.57 0.58

299 13.72 10.90 8.18 6.54 6.07 6.07 6.97 7.59 8.18 9.89 12.15 14.66 8.18 1.31

300 13.81 10.98 8.23 6.59 6.11 6.11 7.02 7.64 8.23 9.96 12.23 14.76 8.23 1.32

360 5.52 4.39 3.29 2.63 2.44 2.44 2.81 3.06 3.29 3.98 4.89 5.90 3.29 0.53

299 12.15 9.66 7.59 6.44 6.54 7.33 7.33 7.59 8.68 9.24 10.90 12.51 8.14 1.31

300 12.23 9.73 7.64 6.49 6.59 7.38 7.38 7.64 8.74 9.31 10.98 12.59 8.19 1.32

360 4.89 3.89 3.06 2.59 2.63 2.95 2.95 3.06 3.49 3.72 4.39 5.04 3.28 0.53

399 -1.5% 12.11 10.13 8.28 6.71 6.15 6.22 7.41 8.13 8.84 9.69 10.80 13.07 7.77 1.25

400 -1.5% 12.18 10.19 8.32 6.75 6.18 6.26 7.46 8.18 8.90 9.75 10.86 13.14 7.82 1.26

528 -1.5% 5.57 4.66 3.81 3.09 6.22 6.30 7.50 8.22 8.95 9.81 4.96 6.01 7.86 1.26

399 -1.5% 10.35 9.37 8.14 8.54 9.00 9.89 9.51 9.34 10.29 9.55 9.93 10.57 9.42 1.51

400 -1.5% 10.40 9.42 8.19 8.59 9.05 9.94 9.57 9.39 10.35 9.60 9.99 10.63 9.48 1.52

528 -1.5% 4.76 4.31 3.74 8.64 9.11 10.00 9.62 9.44 10.41 4.39 4.57 4.86 9.53 1.53

399 -1.5% 16.02 12.38 9.91 8.54 7.88 8.26 8.69 8.54 9.89 10.35 15.05 16.23 8.54 1.37

400 -1.5% 16.11 12.45 9.97 8.59 7.92 8.31 8.74 8.59 9.94 10.40 15.13 16.32 8.59 1.38

528 -1.5% 7.36 5.69 4.56 8.64 7.97 8.36 8.79 8.64 10.00 4.76 6.92 7.46 8.64 1.39

399 -1.5% 12.14 9.93 8.56 7.64 8.00 8.31 8.31 8.39 9.51 10.35 11.55 12.73 8.31 1.33

400 -1.5% 12.21 9.99 8.61 7.68 8.05 8.35 8.35 8.44 9.57 10.40 11.61 12.81 8.35 1.34

528 -1.5% 5.58 4.57 3.94 7.73 8.09 8.40 8.40 8.48 9.62 4.76 5.31 5.85 8.40 1.35

849 -2.5% 50.54 40.17 30.13 24.48 23.29 22.86 25.11 28.70 32.07 38.26 44.77 54.03 26.90 4.31

850 -2.5% 50.63 40.25 30.19 24.53 23.33 22.90 25.15 28.75 32.13 38.33 44.85 54.13 26.95 4.32

1067 -2.5% 11.05 8.78 6.59 5.35 13.32 13.07 14.36 16.41 18.35 21.88 9.78 11.81 15.39 2.47

849 -2.5% 48.96 43.52 38.21 36.44 33.48 29.22 26.34 28.70 32.14 42.29 47.48 52.23 30.68 4.91

850 -2.5% 49.05 43.60 38.28 36.50 33.54 29.27 26.39 28.75 32.20 42.37 47.56 52.32 30.73 4.92

1067 -2.5% 10.70 9.51 8.35 7.96 19.15 16.71 15.07 16.41 18.38 24.19 10.38 11.42 17.55 2.81

849 -2.5% 47.48 38.21 33.34 24.48 32.14 32.79 32.79 32.79 34.93 34.93 42.35 48.96 32.79 5.25

850 -2.5% 47.56 38.28 33.40 24.53 32.20 32.85 32.85 32.85 35.00 35.00 42.42 49.05 32.85 5.26

1067 -2.5% 10.38 8.35 7.29 14.00 18.38 18.76 18.76 18.76 19.98 7.64 9.26 10.70 18.76 3.01

849 -2.5% 42.35 39.17 34.06 30.90 28.19 29.22 28.19 29.22 32.14 37.30 41.23 46.08 29.22 4.68

850 -2.5% 42.42 39.24 34.12 30.96 28.24 29.27 28.24 29.27 32.20 37.37 41.31 46.17 29.27 4.69

1067 -2.5% 9.26 8.56 7.44 17.67 16.12 16.71 16.12 16.71 18.38 8.15 9.01 10.07 16.71 2.68

1C

Cd. Juárez

Monterrey

Tampico

Mérida

1A

Cuautla

Tepic

Nogales

Los Tuxtlas

1B

Chihuahua

Acapulco

Poza Rica

Riviera Maya

1

Durango

Oaxaca

Guadalajara

Puebla

Distrito

Federal

Tariff City

[m2] [kWp]


Annex

127

Source: Own display

In the tariffs 1B to 1F PV systems were sized on the basis of the summer months only as this results in more economic PV system sizes due to the significantly higher range limits during summer and the higher radiation values. The fields of the winter months which were not considered for system sizing are shaded.

Average

consume

per month of

PV user

Efficiency

loss

factor Lt

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecRequired

PV area

Required

installed

PV output

[kWh/month] [%] [m2]

999 -3.0% 43.83 35.61 31.66 29.99 30.92 31.47 36.72 35.97 37.50 35.25 37.99 43.83 35.61 5.70

1000 -3.0% 43.91 35.67 31.71 30.04 30.97 31.52 36.78 36.03 37.56 35.31 38.05 43.91 35.67 5.71

1320 -3.0% 14.64 11.89 10.57 10.01 22.71 23.12 26.97 26.42 27.54 25.89 12.68 14.64 26.16 4.19

999 -3.0% 38.85 31.08 28.49 25.90 27.11 26.70 27.97 28.42 29.87 30.39 34.89 40.70 28.20 4.52

1000 -3.0% 38.92 31.13 28.54 25.94 27.16 26.75 28.02 28.47 29.92 30.44 34.95 40.77 28.25 4.52

1320 -3.0% 12.97 10.38 9.51 8.65 19.92 19.61 20.55 20.88 21.94 22.32 11.65 13.59 20.71 3.32

999 -3.0% 58.95 43.83 32.25 28.30 26.30 25.00 25.92 26.30 32.04 34.56 46.20 61.05 26.30 4.21

1000 -3.0% 59.05 43.91 32.31 28.35 26.35 25.04 25.96 26.35 32.10 34.61 46.28 61.15 26.35 4.22

1320 -3.0% 19.68 14.64 10.77 9.45 19.32 18.36 19.04 19.32 23.54 25.38 15.43 20.38 19.32 3.10

999 -3.0% 35.61 31.08 26.71 26.30 26.70 30.92 29.87 30.39 33.89 32.25 33.92 42.00 30.13 4.83

1000 -3.0% 35.67 31.13 26.76 26.35 26.75 30.97 29.92 30.44 33.95 32.31 33.97 42.07 30.18 4.83

1320 -3.0% 11.89 10.38 8.92 19.32 19.61 22.71 21.94 22.32 24.90 10.77 11.32 14.02 22.13 3.55

1999 -3.5% 99.01 84.87 74.26 66.01 59.58 59.58 68.40 72.43 71.03 80.30 84.87 104.84 69.72 11.16

2000 -3.5% 99.09 84.94 74.32 66.06 59.62 59.62 68.46 72.49 71.09 80.36 84.94 104.92 69.77 11.17

2640 -3.5% 31.71 27.18 23.78 21.14 41.98 41.98 48.19 51.03 50.05 56.58 27.18 33.58 49.12 7.86

1999 -3.5% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.60 54.32 62.61 63.69 58.63 62.61 0.00 0.00 60.62 9.70

2000 -3.5% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.64 54.36 62.66 63.74 58.68 62.66 0.00 0.00 60.67 9.71

2640 -3.5% 25.37 20.03 17.56 15.85 35.65 38.27 44.11 44.87 41.31 44.11 22.38 20.38 42.71 6.84

1999 -3.5% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 64.80 61.05 60.95 64.80 76.95 83.95 0.00 0.00 64.80 10.37

2000 -3.5% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 64.86 61.10 61.00 64.86 77.02 84.02 0.00 0.00 64.86 10.38

2640 -3.5% 25.13 25.13 25.13 25.13 45.66 43.02 42.95 45.66 54.22 59.15 25.13 25.13 45.66 7.31

1999 -3.5% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 76.95 61.56 55.13 58.63 75.38 90.09 0.00 0.00 68.47 10.96

2000 -3.5% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 77.02 61.61 55.18 58.68 75.44 90.16 0.00 0.00 68.53 10.97

2640 -3.5% 36.82 31.71 27.18 25.37 54.22 43.38 38.84 41.31 53.11 63.48 34.59 39.36 48.24 7.72

2499 -4.0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 58.51 52.90 55.17 63.31 63.31 70.21 0.00 0.00 60.91 9.75

2750 -4.0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 81.08 73.30 76.44 87.72 87.72 97.29 0.00 0.00 84.40 13.51

870 -4.0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.81 9.77 10.19 11.70 11.70 12.97 0.00 0.00 11.25 1.81

2499 -4.0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 52.90 52.18 55.97 63.62 75.72 95.35 0.00 0.00 59.79 9.57

2750 -4.0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 73.30 72.31 77.55 88.16 104.92 132.12 0.00 0.00 82.85 13.26

870 -4.0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.77 9.64 10.34 11.75 13.99 17.62 0.00 0.00 11.05 1.77

2499 -4.0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 54.70 50.15 51.49 63.62 66.58 68.96 0.00 0.00 0.00 59.16 9.47

2750 -4.0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 54.74 69.49 71.35 88.16 92.26 95.55 25.90 0.00 0.00 79.75 12.77

870 -4.0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.27 9.51 11.75 12.30 12.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.63 1.71

2499 -4.0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 46.53 44.90 55.97 58.51 57.64 64.36 0.00 0.00 56.80 9.09

2750 -4.0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 64.47 62.22 77.55 81.08 79.87 89.18 0.00 0.00 78.71 12.60

870 -4.0% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.60 8.30 10.34 10.81 10.65 11.89 0.00 0.00 10.49 1.68

1E

Culiacán

Guaymas

Reynosa

Piedras

Negras

1F

Mexicali

San Luis Rio

Colorado

Cd. Obregón

Hermosillo

1D

Mazatlán

La Paz

Matamoros

Cd.

Altamirano

Tariff City

[m2] [kWp]


Annex

128

Annex 13: Courses of solar radiation


Annex

129

Source: http://smn.cna.gob.mx/productos/emas/


Annex

130

Annex 14: Calculated net present value sums of residential tariffs over 20 years (residential sector)

Tariff 1



Basic 1-75 20.986 21.054 21.122 21.189 21.257 21.324 21.392 21.460 21.527 21.595 21.662 21.730

Intermediate 24.839 24.907 24.974 25.042 25.109 25.177 25.245 25.312 25.380 25.447 25.515 25.582



Basic 1-75 20.986 21.054 21.122 21.189 21.257 21.324 21.392 21.460 21.527 21.595 21.662 21.730

Intermediate 76-125 34.538 34.639 34.741 34.842 34.944 35.045 35.146 35.248 35.349 35.450 35.552 35.653

Exceeding 73.131 73.368 73.605 73.841 74.078 74.314 74.551 74.787 75.024 75.260 75.497 75.734

Tariff 1A

SUMMER SEASON



Basic 1-100 18.28 18.35 18.42 18.49 18.55 18.62 18.69 18.76 18.82 18.89 18.96 19.03

Intermediate 21.70 21.76 21.83 21.90 21.97 22.03 22.10 22.17 22.24 22.30 22.37 22.44



Basic 1-100 18.28 18.35 18.42 18.49 18.55 18.62 18.69 18.76 18.82 18.89 18.96 19.03

Intermediate 101-150 27.44 27.54 27.64 27.75 27.85 27.95 28.05 28.15 28.25 28.35 28.46 28.56

Exceeding 73.13 73.37 73.60 73.84 74.08 74.31 74.55 74.79 75.02 75.26 75.50 75.73

WINTER SEASON



Basic 1-75 20.99 21.05 21.12 21.19 21.26 21.32 21.39 21.46 21.53 21.59 21.66 21.73

Intermediate 24.84 24.91 24.97 25.04 25.11 25.18 25.24 25.31 25.38 25.45 25.51 25.58



Basic 1-75 20.99 21.05 21.12 21.19 21.26 21.32 21.39 21.46 21.53 21.59 21.66 21.73

Intermediate 76-125 34.54 34.64 34.74 34.84 34.94 35.04 35.15 35.25 35.35 35.45 35.55 35.65

Exceeding 73.13 73.37 73.60 73.84 74.08 74.31 74.55 74.79 75.02 75.26 75.50 75.73

Tariff 1B

SUMMER SEASON



Basic 1-125 18.28 18.35 18.42 18.49 18.55 18.62 18.69 18.76 18.82 18.89 18.96 19.03

Intermediate 21.70 21.76 21.83 21.90 21.97 22.03 22.10 22.17 22.24 22.30 22.37 22.44



Basic 1-125 18.28 18.35 18.42 18.49 18.55 18.62 18.69 18.76 18.82 18.89 18.96 19.03

Intermediate 126-200 27.44 27.54 27.64 27.75 27.85 27.95 28.05 28.15 28.25 28.35 28.46 28.56

Exceeding 73.13 73.37 73.60 73.84 74.08 74.31 74.55 74.79 75.02 75.26 75.50 75.73

WINTER SEASON



Basic 1-75 20.99 21.05 21.12 21.19 21.26 21.32 21.39 21.46 21.53 21.59 21.66 21.73

Intermediate 24.84 24.91 24.97 25.04 25.11 25.18 25.24 25.31 25.38 25.45 25.51 25.58



Intermediate 1-75 20.99 21.05 21.12 21.19 21.26 21.32 21.39 21.46 21.53 21.59 21.66 21.73

Intermediate 76-150 34.54 34.64 34.74 34.84 34.94 35.04 35.15 35.25 35.35 35.45 35.55 35.65

Exceeding 73.13 73.37 73.60 73.84 74.08 74.31 74.55 74.79 75.02 75.26 75.50 75.73


Annex

131

Tariff 1C

SUMMER SEASON



Basic 1-150 18.28 18.35 18.42 18.49 18.55 18.62 18.69 18.76 18.82 18.89 18.96 19.03

Intermediate 21.70 21.76 21.83 21.90 21.97 22.03 22.10 22.17 22.24 22.30 22.37 22.44



Basic 1-150 18.28 18.35 18.42 18.49 18.55 18.62 18.69 18.76 18.82 18.89 18.96 19.03

Intermediate 151-450 27.44 27.54 27.64 27.75 27.85 27.95 28.05 28.15 28.25 28.35 28.46 28.56

Exceeding 73.13 73.37 73.60 73.84 74.08 74.31 74.55 74.79 75.02 75.26 75.50 75.73

WINTER SEASON



Basic 1-75 20.99 21.05 21.12 21.19 21.26 21.32 21.39 21.46 21.53 21.59 21.66 21.73

Intermediate 24.84 24.91 24.97 25.04 25.11 25.18 25.24 25.31 25.38 25.45 25.51 25.58



Basic 1-75 20.99 21.05 21.12 21.19 21.26 21.32 21.39 21.46 21.53 21.59 21.66 21.73

Intermediate 76-150 34.54 34.64 34.74 34.84 34.94 35.04 35.15 35.25 35.35 35.45 35.55 35.65

Exceeding 73.13 73.37 73.60 73.84 74.08 74.31 74.55 74.79 75.02 75.26 75.50 75.73

Tariff 1D

SUMMER SEASON



Basic 1-175 18.28 18.35 18.42 18.49 18.55 18.62 18.69 18.76 18.82 18.89 18.96 19.03

Intermediate 21.70 21.76 21.83 21.90 21.97 22.03 22.10 22.17 22.24 22.30 22.37 22.44



Basic 1-175 18.28 18.35 18.42 18.49 18.55 18.62 18.69 18.76 18.82 18.89 18.96 19.03

Intermediate 176-600 27.44 27.54 27.64 27.75 27.85 27.95 28.05 28.15 28.25 28.35 28.46 28.56

Exceeding 73.13 73.37 73.60 73.84 74.08 74.31 74.55 74.79 75.02 75.26 75.50 75.73

WINTER SEASON



Basic 1-75 20.99 21.05 21.12 21.19 21.26 21.32 21.39 21.46 21.53 21.59 21.66 21.73

Intermediate 24.84 24.91 24.97 25.04 25.11 25.18 25.24 25.31 25.38 25.45 25.51 25.58



Basic 1-75 20.99 21.05 21.12 21.19 21.26 21.32 21.39 21.46 21.53 21.59 21.66 21.73

Intermediate 76-175 34.54 34.64 34.74 34.84 34.94 35.04 35.15 35.25 35.35 35.45 35.55 35.65

Exceeding 73.13 73.37 73.60 73.84 74.08 74.31 74.55 74.79 75.02 75.26 75.50 75.73


Annex

132

Source: Own display

Tariff 1E

SUMMER SEASON



Basic 1-300 14.90 14.94 14.97 15.00 15.04 15.07 15.11 15.14 15.17 15.21 15.24 15.28

Intermediate 19.33 19.40 19.47 19.53 19.60 19.67 19.74 19.80 19.87 19.94 20.01 20.07



Basic 1-300 14.90 14.94 14.97 15.00 15.04 15.07 15.11 15.14 15.17 15.21 15.24 15.28

Intermediate 301-900 24.64 24.70 24.77 24.84 24.91 24.97 25.04 25.11 25.18 25.24 25.31 25.38

Exceeding 73.13 73.37 73.60 73.84 74.08 74.31 74.55 74.79 75.02 75.26 75.50 75.73

WINTER SEASON



Basic 1-75 20.99 21.05 21.12 21.19 21.26 21.32 21.39 21.46 21.53 21.59 21.66 21.73

Intermediate 76-200 24.84 24.91 24.97 25.04 25.11 25.18 25.24 25.31 25.38 25.45 25.51 25.58

Exceeding 73.13 73.37 73.60 73.84 74.08 74.31 74.55 74.79 75.02 75.26 75.50 75.73



Basic 1-75 20.99 21.05 21.12 21.19 21.26 21.32 21.39 21.46 21.53 21.59 21.66 21.73

Intermediate 76-200 34.54 34.64 34.74 34.84 34.94 35.04 35.15 35.25 35.35 35.45 35.55 35.65

Exceeding 73.13 73.37 73.60 73.84 74.08 74.31 74.55 74.79 75.02 75.26 75.50 75.73

Tariff 1F

SUMMER SEASON

Consumption of up to 1,200 kWh per month


Basic 1-300 14.90 14.94 14.97 15.00 15.04 15.07 15.11 15.14 15.17 15.21 15.24 15.28

Exceeding 19.33 19.40 19.47 19.53 19.60 19.67 19.74 19.80 19.87 19.94 20.01 20.07

Consumption exceeding 1,200 kWh per month


Basic 1-300 14.90 14.94 14.97 15.00 15.04 15.07 15.11 15.14 15.17 15.21 15.24 15.28

Intermediate Low 301-1,200 24.64 24.70 24.77 24.84 24.91 24.97 25.04 25.11 25.18 25.24 25.31 25.38

Intermediate High 1,201-2,500 45.96 46.10 46.23 46.37 46.50 46.64 46.81 46.97 47.14 47.31 47.48 47.65

Exceeding 73.13 73.37 73.60 73.84 74.08 74.31 74.55 74.79 75.02 75.26 75.50 75.73

WINTER SEASON



Basic 1-75 20.99 21.05 21.12 21.19 21.26 21.32 21.39 21.46 21.53 21.59 21.66 21.73

Intermediate 76-200 24.84 24.91 24.97 25.04 25.11 25.18 25.24 25.31 25.38 25.45 25.51 25.58

Exceeding 73.13 73.37 73.60 73.84 74.08 74.31 74.55 74.79 75.02 75.26 75.50 75.73



Basic 1-75 20.99 21.05 21.12 21.19 21.26 21.32 21.39 21.46 21.53 21.59 21.66 21.73

Intermediate 76-200 34.54 34.64 34.74 34.84 34.94 35.04 35.15 35.25 35.35 35.45 35.55 35.65

Exceeding 73.13 73.37 73.60 73.84 74.08 74.31 74.55 74.79 75.02 75.26 75.50 75.73


Annex

133

Annex 15: Calculated net present value sums of the tariffs for low, medium and high voltage over 20 years (industry and services sectors)

Tariff 2

Range Averaged Annual (+VAT) Sum

1 - 50 2.450 33.804 620

51 - 100 2.960 40.849 749

Exceeding 3.264 45.036 826

Monthly 62.84 867.243 15,901

Tariff 3

Averaged Annual (+VAT) Sum

285.299 3,937.125 72186

1.796 24.791 455

Tariff O-M


Demand charge ($/kW) 146.576 2,022.749 37,087

Price per kWh ($/kWh) 1.170 16.150 296

Demand charge ($/kW) 175.476 2,421.563 44,399

Price per kWh ($/kWh) 1.308 18.046 331

Demand charge ($/kW) 161.333 2,226.398 40,820

Price per kWh ($/kWh) 1.221 16.845 309

Tariff H-M


Demand charge ($/kW) 262.216 3,618.586 66,346

Peak energy price [$/kWh] 3.584 49.454 907

Intermediate energy price [$/kWh] 0.992 13.685 251

Base energy price [$/kWh] 0.779 10.753 197

Demand charge ($/kW) 181.757 2,508.242 45,988




Demand charge ($/kW) 167.126 2,306.335 42,286




Tarifa H-MC


Demand charge ($/kW) 102.442 1,413.705 25,920




Price per kWh ($/kWh)

Fix charge ($)

Northeast

Price per kWh ($/kWh)

Demand charge ($/kW)

Central

Baja California

Baja California

Central

Northeast


Annex

134

Level subtransmission

Tarifa H-S


Demand charge ($/kW) 215.050 2,967.687 54,412

Peak energy price [$/kWh] 4.097 56.539 1,037




Demand charge ($/kW) 121.486 1,676.500 30,738

Peak energy price [$/kWh] 3.975 54.851 1,006



Demand charge ($/kW) 119.349 1,647.016 30,198




Tarifa H-SL


Demand charge ($/kW) 322.434 4,449.586 81,582





Demand charge ($/kW) 182.156 2,513.758 46,089




Demand charge ($/kW) 179.061 2,471.048 45,306




Northeast

Baja California

Central

Baja California

Central

Northeast


Annex

135

Source: Own display

Level transmission

Tarifa H-T


Demand charge ($/kW) 201.052 2,774.522 50,870





Demand charge ($/kW) 105.837 1,460.544 26,779




Demand charge ($/kW) 105.837 1,460.544 26,779




Tarifa H-TL


Demand charge ($/kW) 301.649 4,162.758 76,323





Demand charge ($/kW) 158.779 2,191.155 40,174




Demand charge ($/kW) 158.779 2,191.155 40,174




Central

Peninsular

Baja California

Peninsular

Central

Baja California


Annex

136

Annex 16: Scenario 1 – Calculated costs of PV systems for full supply (residential sector)

Average

consumption

per month of

PV user

Radiation

Overall PV

investment

costs

O&M costs

as net

present

value

CFE

minimum

costs for

consumption

of 25 kWh

Overall PV

system

costs as

net

present

value

PV

generation

costs

[kWh/month] [kWh/m2/d] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$/kWh]

140 5.73 46,590 3,659 6,407 57,450 1.85

249 5.73 90,750 7,128 6,407 105,745 1.85

250 5.73 91,155 7,160 6,407 106,188 1.85

300 5.73 111,411 8,751 6,407 128,342 1.85

140 5.33 50,090 3,934 6,407 61,278 1.99

249 5.33 97,567 7,663 6,407 113,200 1.99

250 5.33 98,002 7,698 6,407 113,677 1.99

300 5.33 119,780 9,408 6,407 137,494 1.99

140 5.58 47,844 3,758 6,407 58,821 1.90

249 5.58 93,191 7,320 6,407 108,415 1.90

250 5.58 93,607 7,352 6,407 108,870 1.90

300 5.58 114,409 8,986 6,407 131,620 1.90

140 5.48 48,718 3,827 6,407 59,777 1.93

249 5.48 94,894 7,453 6,407 110,277 1.93

250 5.48 95,317 7,487 6,407 110,740 1.93

300 5.48 116,499 9,150 6,407 133,905 1.93

140 4.91 54,342 4,268 6,407 65,928 2.16

249 4.91 105,849 8,314 6,407 122,258 2.15

250 4.91 106,322 8,351 6,407 122,775 2.15

300 4.91 129,949 10,207 6,407 148,615 2.15

150 4.58 63,371 4,977 6,002 75,391 2.31

299 4.58 138,910 10,911 6,002 158,004 2.31

300 4.58 139,417 10,950 6,002 158,558 2.31

360 4.58 169,835 13,340 6,002 191,825 2.31

150 4.81 60,296 4,736 6,002 72,028 2.20

299 4.81 132,169 10,381 6,002 150,632 2.20

300 4.81 132,651 10,419 6,002 151,159 2.20

360 4.81 161,593 12,692 6,002 182,811 2.20

150 5.03 57,677 4,530 6,002 69,164 2.11

299 5.03 126,428 9,930 6,002 144,353 2.10

300 5.03 126,889 9,967 6,002 144,858 2.10

360 5.03 154,574 12,141 6,002 175,135 2.10

150 5.05 57,411 4,509 6,002 68,873 2.10

299 5.05 125,844 9,884 6,002 143,714 2.09

300 5.05 126,303 9,921 6,002 144,217 2.09

360 5.05 153,860 12,085 6,002 174,354 2.09

Cuautla

Tepic

1

Distrito

Federal

Nogales

Durango

Oaxaca

Guadalajara

Puebla

Tariff City

Los Tuxtlas

1A


Annex

137

Average

consumption

per month of

PV user

Radiation

Overall PV

investment

costs

O&M costs

as net

present

value

CFE

minimum

costs for

consumption

of 25 kWh

Overall PV

system

costs as

net

present

value

PV

generation

costs


200 5.92 69,120 5,429 6,002 81,679 1.80

399 5.92 147,719 11,603 6,002 167,638 1.80

400 5.92 148,114 11,634 6,002 168,070 1.80

528 5.92 198,670 15,605 6,002 223,361 1.80

200 5.28 77,528 6,089 6,002 90,874 2.02

399 5.28 165,688 13,014 6,002 187,290 2.02

400 5.28 166,131 13,049 6,002 187,774 2.02

528 5.28 222,837 17,503 6,002 249,791 2.02

200 4.87 83,918 6,591 6,002 97,862 2.19

399 4.87 179,344 14,087 6,002 202,225 2.19

400 4.87 179,824 14,124 6,002 202,749 2.19

528 4.87 241,204 18,945 6,002 269,877 2.19

200 5.35 76,393 6,000 6,002 89,633 1.99

399 5.35 163,264 12,824 6,002 184,638 1.99

400 5.35 163,700 12,858 6,002 185,116 1.99

528 5.35 219,577 17,247 6,002 246,225 1.99

238 5.01 99,589 7,822 6,002 115,001 2.14

849 5.01 386,172 30,332 6,002 428,421 2.14

850 5.01 386,641 30,369 6,002 428,933 2.14

1067 5.01 488,339 38,357 6,002 540,155 2.14

238 4.36 114,518 8,995 6,002 131,328 2.46

849 4.36 444,061 34,879 6,002 491,731 2.46

850 4.36 444,600 34,921 6,002 492,320 2.46

1067 4.36 561,543 44,106 6,002 620,214 2.46

238 4.53 110,300 8,664 6,002 126,715 2.37

849 4.53 427,705 33,594 6,002 473,843 2.37

850 4.53 428,224 33,635 6,002 474,411 2.37

1067 4.53 540,860 42,482 6,002 597,595 2.37

238 4.69 106,382 8,356 6,002 122,430 2.28

849 4.69 412,511 32,401 6,002 457,227 2.28

850 4.69 413,012 32,440 6,002 457,774 2.28

1067 4.69 521,646 40,973 6,002 576,582 2.28

Tampico

Tariff City

Chihuahua

Acapulco

Poza Rica

Riviera Maya

Cd. Juárez

Monterrey

Mérida

1B

1C


Annex

138

Average

consumption

per month of

PV user

Radiation

Overall PV

investment

costs

O&M costs

as net

present

value

CFE

minimum

costs for

consumption

of 25 kWh

Overall PV

system

costs as

net

present

value

PV

generation

costs


300 4.91 131,927 10,362 6,002 150,368 2.19

999 4.91 467,263 36,701 6,002 517,106 2.19

1000 4.91 467,743 36,739 6,002 517,630 2.19

1320 4.91 621,258 48,797 6,002 685,522 2.19

300 5.74 112,780 8,858 6,002 129,427 1.87

999 5.74 399,445 31,375 6,002 442,937 1.87

1000 5.74 399,856 31,407 6,002 443,386 1.87

1320 5.74 531,090 41,715 6,002 586,910 1.87

300 5.21 124,348 9,767 6,002 142,079 2.06

999 5.21 440,419 34,593 6,002 487,748 2.06

1000 5.21 440,871 34,628 6,002 488,243 2.06

1320 5.21 585,568 45,994 6,002 646,489 2.06

300 5.58 115,961 9,108 6,002 132,906 1.92

999 5.58 410,712 32,259 6,002 455,259 1.92

1000 5.58 411,133 32,293 6,002 455,720 1.92

1320 5.58 546,069 42,891 6,002 603,292 1.92

500 4.86 230,806 18,129 5,462 257,958 2.21

1999 4.86 959,180 75,339 5,462 1,054,541 2.21

2000 4.86 959,666 75,377 5,462 1,055,072 2.21

2640 4.86 1,270,646 99,803 5,462 1,395,174 2.21

500 6.05 185,344 14,558 5,462 208,239 1.78

1999 6.05 770,250 60,499 5,462 847,919 1.78

2000 6.05 770,641 60,530 5,462 848,346 1.78

2640 6.05 1,020,367 80,145 5,462 1,121,458 1.78

500 4.54 246,853 19,389 5,462 275,508 2.37

1999 4.54 1,025,870 80,577 5,462 1,127,476 2.37

2000 4.54 1,026,390 80,618 5,462 1,128,044 2.37

2640 4.54 1,358,992 106,742 5,462 1,491,793 2.37

500 4.53 247,352 19,428 5,462 276,054 2.37

1999 4.53 1,027,945 80,740 5,462 1,129,745 2.37

2000 4.53 1,028,465 80,781 5,462 1,130,314 2.37

2640 4.53 1,361,740 106,958 5,462 1,494,799 2.37

Tariff City

La Paz

Matamoros

Mazatlán

Cd.

Altamirano

Culiacán

Guaymas

Reynosa

Piedras

Negras

1D

1E


Annex

139

Source: Own display

Average

consumption

per month of

PV user

Radiation

Overall PV

investment

costs

O&M costs

as net

present

value

CFE

minimum

costs for

consumption

of 25 kWh

Overall PV

system

costs as

net

present

value

PV

generation

costs


725 5.51 300,763 23,623 5,462 334,466 1.96

2499 5.51 1,062,983 83,492 5,462 1,168,064 1.96

2750 5.51 1,170,828 91,963 5,462 1,286,008 1.96

870 5.51 363,064 28,517 5,462 402,602 1.96

725 5.10 324,738 25,507 5,462 360,686 2.11

2499 5.10 1,147,716 90,148 5,462 1,260,732 2.11

2750 5.10 1,264,157 99,293 5,462 1,388,078 2.11

870 5.10 392,005 30,790 5,462 434,252 2.11

725 5.51 300,672 23,616 5,462 334,367 1.96

2499 5.51 1,062,661 83,467 5,462 1,167,712 1.96

2750 5.51 1,170,473 91,935 5,462 1,285,621 1.96

870 5.51 362,954 28,508 5,462 402,481 1.96

725 6.03 274,971 21,598 5,462 306,260 1.79

2499 6.03 971,828 76,332 5,462 1,068,373 1.79

2750 6.03 1,070,425 84,077 5,462 1,176,203 1.79

870 6.03 331,930 26,071 5,462 368,552 1.79

Tariff City

Hermosillo

Mexicali

San Luis Rio

Colorado

Cd. Obregón

1F


Annex

140

Annex 17: Scenario 1 - Calculated costs of PV systems for partial supply (residential sector)

[kWh/month] [kWh/m2/d] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$]

249 5.73 45,835 3,600 49,435 48,512 97,947

250 5.73 45,835 3,600 49,435 50,343 99,778

300 5.73 30,385 2,387 32,772 130,568 163,339

249 5.33 47,380 3,721 51,101 49,921 101,022

250 5.33 47,895 3,762 51,657 49,849 101,506

300 5.33 21,630 1,699 23,329 209,608 232,937

249 5.58 48,410 3,802 52,212 46,417 98,629

250 5.58 48,925 3,843 52,768 46,343 99,111

300 5.58 22,660 1,780 24,440 185,084 209,524

249 5.48 45,835 3,600 49,435 50,746 100,181

250 5.48 46,350 3,641 49,991 50,661 100,652

300 5.48 21,115 1,658 22,773 209,247 232,020

249 4.91 52,530 4,126 56,656 48,143 104,799

250 4.91 53,045 4,166 57,211 48,135 105,347

300 4.91 24,205 1,901 26,106 207,423 233,529

299 4.58 75,705 5,946 81,651 56,396 138,047

300 4.58 76,220 5,987 82,207 56,447 138,654

360 4.58 30,385 2,387 32,772 246,037 278,809

299 4.81 73,130 5,744 78,874 50,628 129,502

300 4.81 73,645 5,784 79,429 50,634 130,064

360 4.81 29,870 2,346 32,216 232,466 264,682

299 5.03 67,465 5,299 72,764 59,609 132,373

300 5.03 67,980 5,340 73,320 59,643 132,962

360 5.03 27,295 2,144 29,439 234,405 263,844

299 5.05 67,465 5,299 72,764 58,527 131,291

300 5.05 67,980 5,340 73,320 58,529 131,849

360 5.05 27,295 2,144 29,439 246,559 275,998

Distrito

Federal

City

Electricity

costs as

net present

value

Average

consumption

per month of

PV user

Tariff

Overall PV

investment

costs

O&M

costs as

net

present

value

Radiation

1

1A

Nogales

Los Tuxtlas

Oaxaca

Overall

costs as

net

present

value

Durango

Guadalajara

Puebla

PV system

costs as

net present

value

Cuautla

Tepic


Annex

141

[kWh/month] [kWh/m2/d] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$]

399 5.92 64,375 5,056 69,431 108,686 178,117

400 5.92 64,890 5,097 69,987 108,536 178,522

528 5.92 64,890 5,097 69,987 269,629 339,616

399 5.28 77,765 6,108 83,873 93,748 177,622

400 5.28 78,280 6,149 84,429 93,652 178,080

528 5.28 78,795 6,189 84,984 255,163 340,147

399 4.87 70,555 5,542 76,097 116,860 192,957

400 4.87 71,070 5,582 76,652 116,874 193,526

528 4.87 71,585 5,623 77,208 265,259 342,467

399 5.35 68,495 5,380 73,875 108,233 182,108

400 5.35 69,010 5,420 74,430 108,162 182,592

528 5.35 69,525 5,461 74,986 258,268 333,254

849 5.01 221,965 17,434 239,399 204,865 444,264

850 5.01 222,480 17,475 239,955 204,875 444,830

1067 5.01 127,205 9,991 137,196 616,092 753,288

849 4.36 252,865 19,861 272,726 207,411 480,137

850 4.36 253,380 19,902 273,282 207,504 480,786

1067 4.36 144,715 11,367 156,082 626,692 782,773

849 4.53 270,375 21,237 291,612 192,862 484,474

850 4.53 270,890 21,277 292,167 192,915 485,083

1067 4.53 155,015 12,176 167,191 583,712 750,903

849 4.69 241,020 18,931 259,951 196,572 456,523

850 4.69 241,535 18,971 260,506 196,611 457,117

1067 4.69 138,020 10,841 148,861 592,706 741,567

999 4.91 293,550 23,057 316,607 187,597 504,204

1000 4.91 294,065 23,097 317,162 187,572 504,735

1320 4.91 215,785 16,949 232,734 676,437 909,171

999 5.74 232,780 18,284 251,064 219,912 470,976

1000 5.74 232,780 18,284 251,064 220,508 471,572

1320 5.74 170,980 13,430 184,410 740,749 925,158

999 5.21 216,815 17,030 233,845 287,501 521,346

1000 5.21 217,330 17,070 234,400 287,500 521,900

1320 5.21 159,650 12,540 172,190 748,206 920,396

999 5.58 248,745 19,538 268,283 205,944 474,226

1000 5.58 248,745 19,538 268,283 206,541 474,823

1320 5.58 182,825 14,360 197,185 687,188 884,374

Acapulco

City

Electricity

costs as

net present

value

Average

consumption

per month of

PV user

La Paz

Matamoros

1C

Mazatlán

1D

1B

Chihuahua

Tariff

Overall PV

investment

costs

O&M

costs as

net

present

value

Radiation

Overall

costs as

net

present

value

PV system

costs as

net present

value

Cd.

Altamirano

Cd. Juárez

Monterrey

Tampico

Mérida

Poza Rica

Riviera Maya


Annex

142

Source: Own display

[kWh/month] [kWh/m2/d] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$]

1999 4.86 574,740 45,143 619,883 458,285 1,078,168

2000 4.86 575,255 45,184 620,439 458,297 1,078,736

2640 4.86 404,790 31,794 436,584 1,485,820 1,922,404

1999 6.05 499,550 39,237 538,787 374,204 912,992

2000 6.05 500,065 39,278 539,343 374,044 913,386

2640 6.05 352,260 27,668 379,928 1,420,009 1,799,937

1999 4.54 534,055 41,947 576,002 573,376 1,149,379

2000 4.54 534,570 41,988 576,558 573,453 1,150,011

2640 4.54 376,465 29,570 406,035 1,508,152 1,914,186

1999 4.53 564,440 44,334 608,774 548,582 1,157,356

2000 4.53 564,955 44,374 609,329 548,666 1,157,995

2640 4.53 397,580 31,228 428,808 1,526,958 1,955,766

2499 5.51 502,125 39,439 541,564 777,222 1,318,786

2750 5.51 695,765 54,649 750,414 611,710 1,362,124

870 5.51 93,215 7,322 100,537 165,144 265,681

2499 5.10 492,855 38,711 531,566 859,445 1,391,012

2750 5.10 682,890 53,638 736,528 725,680 1,462,208

870 5.10 91,155 7,160 98,315 173,751 272,065

2499 5.51 487,705 38,307 526,012 800,249 1,326,261

2750 5.51 657,655 51,656 709,311 668,083 1,377,393

870 5.51 88,065 6,917 94,982 175,942 270,924

2499 6.03 468,135 36,770 504,905 773,655 1,278,560

2750 6.03 648,900 50,968 699,868 606,422 1,306,290

870 6.03 86,520 6,796 93,316 164,341 257,657

City

Electricity

costs as

net present

value

Average

consumption

per month of

PV user

Tariff

Overall PV

investment

costs

O&M

costs as

net

present

value

Radiation

Overall

costs as

net

present

value

PV system

costs as

net present

value

Hermosillo

1F

Reynosa

Piedras

Negras

1E

Mexicali

Culiacán

Guaymas

San Luis Rio

Colorado

Cd. Obregón


Annex

143

Annex 18: Scenario 1 – Key data for PV systems for partial electricity supply (residential sector)

[kWh/m2/d] [$/kWh] [%] [$/kWh] [$/kWh] [$/kWh]

5.73 3.69 45% 1.00 2.21 1.72

5.73 3.69 45% 1.03 2.22 2.93

5.73 3.69 25% 1.64 2.14 2.88

5.33 3.97 43% 1.00 2.28 1.72

5.33 3.97 43% 1.00 2.29 2.98

5.33 3.97 16% 2.37 2.63 2.93

5.58 3.79 46% 0.98 2.28 1.72

5.58 3.79 46% 0.98 2.28 2.93

5.58 3.79 18% 2.13 2.43 2.88

5.48 3.86 43% 1.01 2.23 1.72

5.48 3.86 43% 1.01 2.24 2.98

5.48 3.86 16% 2.37 2.61 2.93

4.91 4.31 44% 0.98 2.44 1.72

4.91 4.31 44% 0.98 2.45 3.19

4.91 4.31 17% 2.36 2.69 3.14

4.58 4.62 49% 1.05 2.81 1.74

4.58 4.62 49% 1.06 2.82 2.93

4.58 4.62 16% 2.32 2.70 2.89

4.81 4.40 50% 0.96 2.68 1.74

4.81 4.40 50% 0.96 2.68 2.88

4.81 4.40 17% 2.21 2.58 2.84

5.03 4.20 48% 1.09 2.59 1.74

5.03 4.20 48% 1.09 2.60 2.88

5.03 4.20 16% 2.20 2.53 2.84

5.05 4.19 48% 1.08 2.58 1.74

5.05 4.19 49% 1.08 2.59 2.93

5.05 4.19 16% 2.32 2.62 2.89

Average

overall

kWh costs

with PV

Average

tariff costs

without PV

Distrito

Federal

CityRadiation

Average

tariff costs

with PV

PV

generation

costs

1A

Nogales

Los Tuxtlas

1

Durango

Guadalajara

Puebla

Oaxaca

PV

portion of

electricity

demand

Tariff

Cuautla

Tepic


Annex

144


5.92 3.60 40% 1.29 2.22 1.79

5.92 3.60 40% 1.29 2.23 2.85

5.92 3.60 31% 2.09 2.55 2.81

5.28 4.04 43% 1.18 2.42 1.79

5.28 4.04 44% 1.18 2.42 2.87

5.28 4.04 33% 2.05 2.71 2.83

4.87 4.38 36% 1.30 2.42 1.79

4.87 4.38 36% 1.30 2.43 2.84

4.87 4.38 28% 1.97 2.64 2.80

5.35 3.98 39% 1.26 2.31 1.79

5.35 3.98 39% 1.26 2.32 2.87

5.35 3.98 30% 1.97 2.57 2.83

5.01 4.28 55% 1.52 3.03 1.95

5.01 4.28 55% 1.52 3.04 2.69

5.01 4.28 25% 2.18 2.71 2.67

4.36 4.92 54% 1.52 3.37 1.95

4.36 4.92 54% 1.52 3.37 2.74

4.36 4.92 25% 2.21 2.88 2.72

4.53 4.74 60% 1.63 3.51 1.95

4.53 4.74 60% 1.63 3.51 2.74

4.53 4.74 28% 2.14 2.86 2.72

4.69 4.57 56% 1.49 3.21 1.95

4.69 4.57 56% 1.49 3.21 2.79

4.69 4.57 25% 2.11 2.74 2.77

4.91 4.37 60% 1.34 3.17 1.89

4.91 4.37 60% 1.34 3.17 2.80

4.91 4.37 34% 2.19 2.92 2.78

5.74 3.74 56% 1.42 2.72 1.89

5.74 3.74 56% 1.42 2.72 2.84

5.74 3.74 31% 2.31 2.76 2.85

5.21 4.13 47% 1.55 2.77 1.89

5.21 4.13 47% 1.55 2.77 2.72

5.21 4.13 26% 2.18 2.69 2.71

5.58 3.85 58% 1.40 2.82 1.90

5.58 3.85 58% 1.40 2.82 2.77

5.58 3.85 32% 2.18 2.72 2.76

Average

overall

kWh costs

with PV

Average

tariff costs

without PVCity

Radiation

Average

tariff costs

with PV

1C

Mazatlán

1D

1B

Chihuahua

Acapulco

Poza Rica

Riviera Maya

Matamoros

Cd.

Altamirano

PV

generation

costs

PV

portion of

electricity

demand

Tariff

Mérida

La Paz

Cd. Juárez

Monterrey

Tampico


Annex

145

Source: Own display


4.86 4.44 58% 1.56 3.23 2.05

4.86 4.44 58% 1.56 3.23 2.76

4.86 4.44 31% 2.31 2.97 2.76

6.05 3.56 63% 1.44 2.78 2.05

6.05 3.56 63% 1.44 2.78 2.76

6.05 3.56 34% 2.30 2.72 2.76

4.54 4.75 51% 1.64 3.21 2.05

4.54 4.75 51% 1.64 3.22 2.69

4.54 4.75 27% 2.22 2.90 2.69

4.53 4.76 53% 1.67 3.32 2.05

4.53 4.76 53% 1.67 3.32 2.69

4.53 4.76 28% 2.29 2.99 2.69

5.51 3.93 46% 1.63 2.69 1.80

5.51 3.93 58% 1.50 2.90 1.88

5.51 3.93 25% 0.71 1.50 1.01

5.10 4.25 42% 1.67 2.75 1.80

5.10 4.25 53% 1.58 2.98 2.01

5.10 4.25 22% 0.73 1.51 1.01

5.51 3.93 45% 1.64 2.66 1.80

5.51 3.93 55% 1.52 2.84 2.01

5.51 3.93 23% 0.75 1.48 1.01

6.03 3.59 47% 1.65 2.56 1.80

6.03 3.59 59% 1.53 2.75 2.01

6.03 3.59 25% 0.71 1.43 1.01

Average

overall

kWh costs

with PV

Average

tariff costs

without PVCity

Radiation

Average

tariff costs

with PV

PV

generation

costs

San Luis Rio

Colorado

PV

portion of

electricity

demand

Tariff

Hermosillo

1F

Reynosa

Piedras

Negras

1E

Mexicali

Culiacán

Guaymas

Cd. Obregón


Annex

146

Annex 19: Scenario 2 – Key data for PV systems with partial electricity supply (residential sector)


5.73 2.95 45% 1.47 2.14 2.53

5.73 2.95 45% 1.52 2.16 4.30

5.73 2.95 25% 2.41 2.54 4.23

5.33 3.18 43% 1.47 2.20 2.53

5.33 3.18 43% 1.47 2.21 4.37

5.33 3.18 16% 3.48 3.43 4.31

5.58 3.03 46% 1.44 2.17 2.53

5.58 3.03 46% 1.44 2.18 4.30

5.58 3.03 18% 3.13 3.11 4.23

5.48 3.09 43% 1.49 2.17 2.53

5.48 3.09 43% 1.49 2.18 4.37

5.48 3.09 16% 3.48 3.41 4.31

4.91 3.44 44% 1.44 2.32 2.53

4.91 3.44 44% 1.44 2.33 4.69

4.91 3.44 17% 3.46 3.46 4.62

4.58 3.70 49% 1.55 2.61 2.56

4.58 3.70 49% 1.55 2.61 4.31

4.58 3.70 16% 3.41 3.45 4.25

4.81 3.52 50% 1.41 2.46 2.56

4.81 3.52 50% 1.41 2.47 4.23

4.81 3.52 17% 3.24 3.29 4.18

5.03 3.36 48% 1.60 2.45 2.56

5.03 3.36 48% 1.61 2.46 4.23

5.03 3.36 16% 3.24 3.26 4.18

5.05 3.35 48% 1.58 2.44 2.56

5.05 3.35 49% 1.58 2.44 4.31

5.05 3.35 16% 3.41 3.40 4.25

Average

overall

kWh costs

with PV

Average

tariff costs

without PV

Distrito

Federal

CityRadiation

Average

tariff costs

with PV

PV

generation

costs

1A

Nogales

Los Tuxtlas

1

Durango

Guadalajara

Puebla

Oaxaca

PV

portion of

electricity

demand

Tariff

Cuautla

Tepic


Annex

147


5.92 2.88 40% 1.90 2.30 2.63

5.92 2.88 40% 1.90 2.30 4.19

5.92 2.88 31% 3.07 3.01 4.14

5.28 3.23 43% 1.73 2.38 2.63

5.28 3.23 44% 1.73 2.38 4.22

5.28 3.23 33% 3.02 3.09 4.16

4.87 3.50 36% 1.92 2.49 2.63

4.87 3.50 36% 1.92 2.49 4.17

4.87 3.50 28% 2.90 3.07 4.11

5.35 3.19 39% 1.85 2.36 2.63

5.35 3.19 39% 1.85 2.37 4.22

5.35 3.19 30% 2.90 2.98 4.16

5.01 3.42 55% 2.23 2.89 2.86

5.01 3.42 55% 2.23 2.89 3.95

5.01 3.42 25% 3.21 3.26 3.93

4.36 3.94 54% 2.23 3.16 2.86

4.36 3.94 54% 2.23 3.16 4.02

4.36 3.94 25% 3.25 3.42 4.00

4.53 3.79 60% 2.39 3.24 2.86

4.53 3.79 60% 2.39 3.24 4.02

4.53 3.79 28% 3.15 3.32 4.00

4.69 3.66 56% 2.18 3.01 2.86

4.69 3.66 56% 2.18 3.01 4.09

4.69 3.66 25% 3.10 3.24 4.07

4.91 3.50 60% 1.97 2.90 2.78

4.91 3.50 60% 1.97 2.90 4.11

4.91 3.50 34% 3.22 3.31 4.09

5.74 2.99 56% 2.08 2.59 2.78

5.74 2.99 56% 2.08 2.59 4.17

5.74 2.99 31% 3.39 3.27 4.19

5.21 3.31 47% 2.27 2.76 2.78

5.21 3.31 47% 2.27 2.76 4.00

5.21 3.31 26% 3.20 3.23 3.98

5.58 3.08 58% 2.05 2.65 2.79

5.58 3.08 58% 2.05 2.65 4.07

5.58 3.08 32% 3.21 3.17 4.05

Average

overall

kWh costs

with PV

Average

tariff costs

without PVCity

Radiation

Average

tariff costs

with PV

1C

Mazatlán

1D

1B

Chihuahua

Acapulco

Poza Rica

Riviera Maya

Matamoros

Cd.

Altamirano

PV

generation

costs

PV

portion of

electricity

demand

Tariff

Mérida

La Paz

Cd. Juárez

Monterrey

Tampico


Annex

148

Source: Own display


4.86 3.55 58% 2.29 3.02 3.02

4.86 3.55 58% 2.29 3.02 4.06

4.86 3.55 31% 3.40 3.45 4.05

6.05 2.85 63% 2.11 2.58 3.02

6.05 2.85 63% 2.11 2.58 4.06

6.05 2.85 34% 3.38 3.20 4.05

4.54 3.80 51% 2.42 3.12 3.02

4.54 3.80 51% 2.42 3.12 3.95

4.54 3.80 27% 3.26 3.41 3.95

4.53 3.81 53% 2.45 3.17 3.02

4.53 3.81 53% 2.45 3.17 3.95

4.53 3.81 28% 3.37 3.49 3.95

5.51 3.14 46% 2.40 2.74 2.65

5.51 3.14 58% 2.20 2.75 2.77

5.51 3.14 25% 1.05 1.56 1.49

5.10 3.40 42% 2.46 2.85 2.65

5.10 3.40 53% 2.32 2.89 2.96

5.10 3.40 22% 1.07 1.59 1.49

5.51 3.14 45% 2.41 2.74 2.65

5.51 3.14 55% 2.24 2.73 2.96

5.51 3.14 23% 1.10 1.57 1.49

6.03 2.87 47% 2.43 2.64 2.65

6.03 2.87 59% 2.24 2.62 2.96

6.03 2.87 25% 1.05 1.50 1.49

Average

overall

kWh costs

with PV

Average

tariff costs

without PVCity

Radiation

Average

tariff costs

with PV

PV

generation

costs

San Luis Rio

Colorado

PV

portion of

electricity

demand

Tariff

Hermosillo

1F

Reynosa

Piedras

Negras

1E

Mexicali

Culiacán

Guaymas

Cd. Obregón


Annex

149

Annex 20: Scenario 3 – Key data for PV systems with partial electricity supply (residential sector)


5.73 1.85 45% 1.47 1.64 2.53

5.73 1.85 45% 1.52 1.66 4.30

5.73 1.85 25% 2.41 2.27 4.23

5.33 1.98 43% 1.47 1.69 2.53

5.33 1.98 43% 1.47 1.69 4.37

5.33 1.98 16% 3.48 3.24 4.31

5.58 1.90 46% 1.44 1.65 2.53

5.58 1.90 46% 1.44 1.65 4.30

5.58 1.90 18% 3.13 2.91 4.23

5.48 1.93 43% 1.49 1.68 2.53

5.48 1.93 43% 1.49 1.68 4.37

5.48 1.93 16% 3.48 3.22 4.31

4.91 2.15 44% 1.44 1.75 2.53

4.91 2.15 44% 1.44 1.76 4.69

4.91 2.15 17% 3.46 3.24 4.62

4.58 2.31 49% 1.55 1.92 2.56

4.58 2.31 49% 1.55 1.93 4.31

4.58 2.31 16% 3.41 3.23 4.25

4.81 2.20 50% 1.41 1.80 2.56

4.81 2.20 50% 1.41 1.81 4.23

4.81 2.20 17% 3.24 3.06 4.18

5.03 2.10 48% 1.60 1.84 2.56

5.03 2.10 48% 1.61 1.85 4.23

5.03 2.10 16% 3.24 3.05 4.18

5.05 2.09 48% 1.58 1.83 2.56

5.05 2.09 49% 1.58 1.83 4.31

5.05 2.09 16% 3.41 3.19 4.25

Cuautla

Tepic

PV

portion of

electricity

demand

Tariff

PV

generation

costs

1A

Nogales

Los Tuxtlas

1

Durango

Guadalajara

Puebla

Oaxaca

Average

overall

kWh costs

with PV

Average

tariff costs

without PV

Distrito

Federal

CityRadiation

Average

tariff costs

with PV


Annex

150


5.92 1.80 40% 1.90 1.86 2.63

5.92 1.80 40% 1.90 1.86 4.19

5.92 1.80 31% 3.07 2.68 4.14

5.28 2.02 43% 1.73 1.85 2.63

5.28 2.02 44% 1.73 1.86 4.22

5.28 2.02 33% 3.02 2.68 4.16

4.87 2.19 36% 1.92 2.02 2.63

4.87 2.19 36% 1.92 2.02 4.17

4.87 2.19 28% 2.90 2.70 4.11

5.35 1.99 39% 1.85 1.90 2.63

5.35 1.99 39% 1.85 1.90 4.22

5.35 1.99 30% 2.90 2.63 4.16

5.01 2.14 55% 2.23 2.18 2.86

5.01 2.14 55% 2.23 2.18 3.95

5.01 2.14 25% 3.21 2.94 3.93

4.36 2.46 54% 2.23 2.36 2.86

4.36 2.46 54% 2.23 2.36 4.02

4.36 2.46 25% 3.25 3.06 4.00

4.53 2.37 60% 2.39 2.38 2.86

4.53 2.37 60% 2.39 2.38 4.02

4.53 2.37 28% 3.15 2.93 4.00

4.69 2.29 56% 2.18 2.24 2.86

4.69 2.29 56% 2.18 2.24 4.09

4.69 2.29 25% 3.10 2.90 4.07

4.91 2.19 60% 1.97 2.10 2.78

4.91 2.19 60% 1.97 2.10 4.11

4.91 2.19 34% 3.22 2.87 4.09

5.74 1.87 56% 2.08 1.96 2.78

5.74 1.87 56% 2.08 1.96 4.17

5.74 1.87 31% 3.39 2.92 4.19

5.21 2.07 47% 2.27 2.17 2.78

5.21 2.07 47% 2.27 2.17 4.00

5.21 2.07 26% 3.20 2.91 3.98

5.58 1.92 58% 2.05 1.98 2.79

5.58 1.92 58% 2.05 1.98 4.07

5.58 1.92 32% 3.21 2.79 4.05

Mérida

La Paz

Cd. Juárez

Monterrey

Tampico

PV

portion of

electricity

demand

Tariff

PV

generation

costs

1C

Mazatlán

1D

1B

Chihuahua

Acapulco

Poza Rica

Riviera Maya

Matamoros

Cd.

Altamirano

Average

overall

kWh costs

with PV

Average

tariff costs

without PVCity

Radiation

Average

tariff costs

with PV


Annex

151

Source: Own display


4.86 2.22 58% 2.29 2.25 3.02

4.86 2.22 58% 2.29 2.25 4.06

4.86 2.22 31% 3.40 3.03 4.05

6.05 1.78 63% 2.11 1.90 3.02

6.05 1.78 63% 2.11 1.90 4.06

6.05 1.78 34% 3.38 2.84 4.05

4.54 2.38 51% 2.42 2.40 3.02

4.54 2.38 51% 2.42 2.40 3.95

4.54 2.38 27% 3.26 3.02 3.95

4.53 2.38 53% 2.45 2.41 3.02

4.53 2.38 53% 2.45 2.41 3.95

4.53 2.38 28% 3.37 3.09 3.95

5.51 1.96 46% 2.40 2.20 2.65

5.51 1.96 58% 2.20 2.06 2.77

5.51 1.96 25% 1.05 1.27 1.49

5.10 2.12 42% 2.46 2.32 2.65

5.10 2.12 53% 2.32 2.22 2.96

5.10 2.12 22% 1.07 1.30 1.49

5.51 1.96 45% 2.41 2.21 2.65

5.51 1.96 55% 2.24 2.09 2.96

5.51 1.96 23% 1.10 1.30 1.49

6.03 1.80 47% 2.43 2.13 2.65

6.03 1.80 59% 2.24 1.98 2.96

6.03 1.80 25% 1.05 1.23 1.49

Hermosillo

1F

Reynosa

Piedras

Negras

1E

Mexicali

Culiacán

Guaymas

Cd. Obregón

San Luis Rio

Colorado

PV

portion of

electricity

demand

Tariff

PV

generation

costs

Average

overall

kWh costs

with PV

Average

tariff costs

without PVCity

Radiation

Average

tariff costs

with PV


Annex

152

Annex 21: Scenario 1 - Cost comparison (industry and services sectors)

Average charged

capacity demand

per month of PV

user

Average

consumption

per month of

PV user

Electricity costs

without PV

Overall

electricity costs

with PV

Cost differenceCost

saving


270 160,217 160,248 -32 NO

135 80,737 80,753 -16 NO

540 319,175 319,238 -64 NO

63 4,600 4,733,216 4,775,732 -42,516 NO

26 2,300 2,289,406 2,311,915 -22,509 NO

100 9,200 8,128,271 8,215,805 -87,534 NO

100 2,300 5,892,148 5,914,657 -22,509 NO

26 9,200 4,525,529 4,613,063 -87,534 NO

50 5,300 2,441,066 2,530,577 -89,510 NO

10 2,650 823,900 868,655 -44,755 NO

99 10,600 4,855,690 5,034,711 -179,021 NO

99 2,650 3,177,257 3,222,013 -44,755 NO

10 10,600 2,502,333 2,681,354 -179,021 NO

50 5,300 2,833,046 2,914,003 -80,957 NO

10 2,650 941,688 982,166 -40,478 NO

99 10,600 5,634,437 5,796,350 -161,913 NO

99 2,650 3,759,044 3,799,522 -40,478 NO

10 10,600 2,817,081 2,978,994 -161,913 NO

50 5,300 2,622,340 2,708,419 -86,079 NO

10 2,650 874,604 917,643 -43,039 NO

99 10,600 5,215,575 5,387,733 -172,158 NO

99 2,650 3,464,896 3,507,935 -43,039 NO

10 10,600 2,625,283 2,797,441 -172,158 NO

200 77,000 28,193,992 29,679,157 -1,485,165 NO

110 38,500 15,043,069 15,783,082 -740,013 NO

300 144,000 49,224,726 51,812,885 -2,588,159 NO

300 38,500 23,557,731 24,297,743 -740,013 NO

110 144,000 40,710,065 43,298,224 -2,588,159 NO

200 77,000 26,308,806 27,745,414 -1,436,608 NO

110 38,500 13,810,179 14,525,997 -715,819 NO

300 144,000 46,773,661 49,271,092 -2,497,431 NO

300 38,500 19,712,161 20,427,979 -715,819 NO

110 144,000 40,871,679 43,369,109 -2,497,431 NO

200 77,000 24,298,029 25,792,991 -1,494,963 NO

110 38,500 12,752,002 13,496,897 -744,895 NO

300 144,000 43,208,632 45,815,099 -2,606,467 NO

300 38,500 18,178,889 18,923,784 -744,895 NO

110 144,000 37,781,745 40,388,212 -2,606,467 NO

200 60,000 20,601,356 21,566,253 -964,897 NO

110 30,000 10,670,289 11,154,881 -484,593 NO

300 120,000 39,354,658 41,284,451 -1,929,794 NO

300 30,000 13,996,786 14,481,379 -484,593 NO

110 120,000 36,028,160 37,957,954 -1,929,794 NO

H-M

Baja

California

Central

Northeast

H-MC Northeast

2

3

O-M

Baja

California

Central

Northeast

Tariff


Annex

153

Average charged

capacity demand

per month of PV

user

Average

consumption

per month of

PV user

Electricity costs

without PV

Overall

electricity costs

with PV

Cost differenceCost

saving


300 1,710,000 533,525,705 556,303,146 -22,777,441 NO

150 855,000 267,150,801 278,539,521 -11,388,720 NO

600 3,420,000 1,067,051,410 1,112,602,743 -45,551,333 NO

600 855,000 284,220,530 295,609,251 -11,388,720 NO

150 3,420,000 1,049,981,681 1,095,533,014 -45,551,333 NO

300 1,710,000 466,145,358 493,766,475 -27,621,117 NO

150 855,000 233,291,838 247,102,397 -13,810,558 NO

600 3,420,000 932,290,716 987,528,646 -55,237,930 NO

600 855,000 242,934,839 256,745,398 -13,810,558 NO

150 3,420,000 922,647,714 977,885,645 -55,237,930 NO

300 1,710,000 443,735,672 472,293,609 -28,557,937 NO

150 855,000 222,083,141 236,362,109 -14,278,969 NO

600 3,420,000 887,471,344 944,582,769 -57,111,425 NO

600 855,000 231,556,552 245,835,520 -14,278,969 NO

150 3,420,000 877,997,933 935,109,358 -57,111,425 NO

300 3,980,000 1,047,624,244 1,104,647,663 -57,023,420 NO

150 1,990,000 523,812,122 552,325,741 -28,513,619 NO

600 7,960,000 2,095,248,488 2,209,295,327 -114,046,839 NO

600 1,990,000 549,987,205 578,500,824 -28,513,619 NO

150 7,960,000 2,069,073,404 2,183,120,244 -114,046,839 NO

300 3,980,000 933,933,105 999,104,192 -65,171,087 NO

150 1,990,000 466,966,552 499,554,278 -32,587,725 NO

600 7,960,000 1,867,866,210 1,998,208,385 -130,342,175 NO

600 1,990,000 481,753,958 514,341,683 -32,587,725 NO

150 7,960,000 1,853,078,805 1,983,420,979 -130,342,175 NO

300 3,980,000 883,804,955 951,186,346 -67,381,391 NO

150 1,990,000 441,902,478 475,595,429 -33,692,951 NO

600 7,960,000 1,767,609,910 1,902,372,693 -134,762,783 NO

600 1,990,000 456,438,635 490,131,586 -33,692,951 NO

150 7,960,000 1,753,073,753 1,887,836,536 -134,762,783 NO

H-SL

Baja

California

Central

Northeast

H-S

Baja

California

Central

Northeast

Tariff


Annex

154

Source: Own display

Average charged

capacity demand

per month of PV

user

Average

consumption

per month of

PV user

Electricity costs

without PV

Overall

electricity costs

with PV

Cost differenceCost

saving


500 8,100,000 2,409,973,050 2,522,921,306 -112,948,256 NO

250 4,050,000 1,204,986,525 1,261,460,653 -56,474,128 NO

1,000 16,200,000 4,819,946,099 5,045,838,896 -225,892,797 NO

1,000 4,050,000 1,232,188,804 1,288,662,932 -56,474,128 NO

250 16,200,000 4,792,743,820 5,018,636,617 -225,892,797 NO

500 8,100,000 2,076,192,071 2,214,570,693 -138,378,622 NO

250 4,050,000 1,038,096,035 1,107,285,346 -69,189,311 NO

1,000 16,200,000 4,152,384,142 4,429,136,833 -276,752,692 NO

1,000 4,050,000 1,052,415,671 1,121,604,982 -69,189,311 NO

250 16,200,000 4,138,064,506 4,414,817,198 -276,752,692 NO

500 8,100,000 1,904,044,470 2,050,096,000 -146,051,530 NO

250 4,050,000 952,022,235 1,025,048,000 -73,025,765 NO

1,000 16,200,000 3,808,088,940 4,100,187,195 -292,098,255 NO

1,000 4,050,000 966,341,871 1,039,367,635 -73,025,765 NO

250 16,200,000 3,793,769,304 4,085,867,559 -292,098,255 NO

500 39,000,000 9,843,379,315 10,429,803,628 -586,424,313 NO

250 19,500,000 4,921,689,658 5,214,899,811 -293,210,153 NO

1,000 78,000,000 19,686,758,631 20,859,607,257 -1,172,848,626 NO

1,000 19,500,000 4,962,502,643 5,255,712,797 -293,210,153 NO

250 78,000,000 19,645,945,645 20,818,794,271 -1,172,848,626 NO

500 39,000,000 8,681,379,698 9,351,560,368 -670,180,670 NO

250 19,500,000 4,340,689,849 4,675,777,895 -335,088,046 NO

1,000 78,000,000 17,362,759,397 18,703,120,736 -1,340,361,340 NO

1,000 19,500,000 4,362,172,624 4,697,260,669 -335,088,046 NO

250 78,000,000 17,341,276,622 18,681,637,962 -1,340,361,340 NO

500 39,000,000 7,851,525,880 8,558,678,221 -707,152,341 NO

250 19,500,000 3,925,762,940 4,279,336,695 -353,573,755 NO

1,000 78,000,000 15,703,051,760 17,117,356,442 -1,414,304,682 NO

1,000 19,500,000 3,947,245,714 4,300,819,469 -353,573,755 NO

250 78,000,000 15,681,568,985 17,095,873,668 -1,414,304,682 NO

H-TL

Baja

California

Central

Peninsula

H-T

Baja

California

Central

Peninsula

Tariff


Annex

155


Radiation 6 kWh/m2 d 5 kWh/m

2 d 4,5 kWh/m

2 d

Average

charged

capacity

demand per

month of PV

user

Average

consumption

per month of

PV user

Cost differenceCost

savingCost difference

Cost


Cost

saving


270 4,636 YES 2,827 YES 1,923 YES

135 2,318 YES 1,696 YES 1,346 YES

540 9,272 YES 5,655 YES 5,770 YES

63 4,600 19,937 YES -1,226 NO -15,502 NO

26 2,300 10,555 YES -584 NO -8,088 NO

100 9,200 41,047 YES -2,394 NO -31,003 NO

100 2,300 10,555 YES -584 NO -8,088 NO

26 9,200 41,047 YES -2,394 NO -31,003 NO

50 5,300 -31,933 NO -56,790 NO -74,278 NO

10 2,650 -15,966 NO -28,395 NO -35,764 NO

99 10,600 -63,866 NO -113,580 NO -145,805 NO

99 2,650 -15,966 NO -28,395 NO -35,764 NO

10 10,600 -63,866 NO -113,580 NO -145,805 NO

50 5,300 -19,935 NO -44,792 NO -62,131 NO

10 2,650 -9,968 NO -22,396 NO -29,915 NO

99 10,600 -39,871 NO -89,585 NO -121,961 NO

99 2,650 -9,968 NO -22,396 NO -29,915 NO

10 10,600 -39,871 NO -89,585 NO -121,961 NO

50 5,300 -27,120 NO -51,977 NO -69,405 NO

10 2,650 -13,560 NO -25,988 NO -33,417 NO

99 10,600 -54,240 NO -103,954 NO -136,240 NO

99 2,650 -13,560 NO -25,988 NO -33,417 NO

10 10,600 -54,240 NO -103,954 NO -136,240 NO

200 77,000 -730,353 NO -1,090,165 NO -1,327,843 NO

110 38,500 -363,913 NO -543,512 NO -665,646 NO

300 144,000 -1,215,161 NO -1,859,263 NO -2,287,062 NO

300 38,500 -363,913 NO -543,512 NO -665,646 NO

110 144,000 -1,215,161 NO -1,859,263 NO -2,287,062 NO

200 77,000 -662,250 NO -1,022,022 NO -1,259,799 NO

110 38,500 -329,979 NO -509,539 NO -631,535 NO

300 144,000 -1,087,910 NO -1,731,816 NO -2,159,634 NO

300 38,500 -329,979 NO -509,539 NO -631,535 NO

110 144,000 -1,087,910 NO -1,731,816 NO -2,159,634 NO

200 77,000 -744,095 NO -1,103,915 NO -1,341,573 NO

110 38,500 -370,760 NO -550,367 NO -672,529 NO

300 144,000 -1,240,839 NO -1,884,981 NO -2,312,775 NO

300 38,500 -370,760 NO -550,367 NO -672,529 NO

110 144,000 -1,240,839 NO -1,884,981 NO -2,312,775 NO

200 60,000 -300,203 NO -579,844 NO -766,272 NO

110 30,000 -150,768 NO -289,922 NO -383,136 NO

300 120,000 -600,405 NO -1,010,177 NO -1,366,420 NO

300 30,000 -150,768 NO -289,922 NO -383,136 NO

110 120,000 -600,405 NO -1,010,177 NO -1,366,420 NO

H-M

Baja

Calfornia

NortheastH-MC

Tariff

2

3

O-M

Baja

Calfornia

Central

Northeast

Central

Northeast


Annex

156


2 d 4,5 kWh/m

2 d

Average

charged

capacity

demand per

month of PV

user

Average

consumption

per month of

PV user

Cost differenceCost


Cost


Cost

saving


300 1,710,000 -5,119,165 NO -12,241,881 NO -16,991,287 NO

150 855,000 -2,559,582 NO -6,121,736 NO -8,494,651 NO

600 3,420,000 -10,237,532 NO -24,485,352 NO -33,982,574 NO

600 855,000 -2,559,582 NO -6,121,736 NO -8,494,651 NO

150 3,420,000 -10,237,532 NO -24,485,352 NO -33,982,574 NO

300 1,710,000 -11,912,671 NO -19,034,858 NO -23,784,528 NO

150 855,000 -5,956,336 NO -9,518,665 NO -11,890,874 NO

600 3,420,000 -23,823,486 NO -38,072,189 NO -47,569,057 NO

600 855,000 -5,956,336 NO -9,518,665 NO -11,890,874 NO

150 3,420,000 -23,823,486 NO -38,072,189 NO -47,569,057 NO

300 1,710,000 -13,226,610 NO -20,348,695 NO -25,098,416 NO

150 855,000 -6,613,305 NO -10,175,669 NO -12,547,742 NO

600 3,420,000 -26,451,159 NO -40,700,032 NO -50,196,833 NO

600 855,000 -6,613,305 NO -10,175,669 NO -12,547,742 NO

150 3,420,000 -26,451,159 NO -40,700,032 NO -50,196,833 NO

300 3,980,000 -17,541,323 NO -34,121,815 NO -45,173,572 NO

150 1,990,000 -8,771,249 NO -17,059,956 NO -22,586,786 NO

600 7,960,000 -35,082,646 NO -68,241,726 NO -90,347,144 NO

600 1,990,000 -8,771,249 NO -17,059,956 NO -22,586,786 NO

150 7,960,000 -35,082,646 NO -68,241,726 NO -90,347,144 NO

300 3,980,000 -28,968,849 NO -45,549,723 NO -56,601,098 NO

150 1,990,000 -14,485,394 NO -22,773,591 NO -28,300,549 NO

600 7,960,000 -57,937,698 NO -91,096,904 NO -113,202,195 NO

600 1,990,000 -14,485,394 NO -22,773,591 NO -28,300,549 NO

150 7,960,000 -57,937,698 NO -91,096,904 NO -113,202,195 NO

300 3,980,000 -32,068,914 NO -48,649,892 NO -59,701,163 NO

150 1,990,000 -16,035,531 NO -24,323,589 NO -29,850,582 NO

600 7,960,000 -64,137,829 NO -97,297,070 NO -119,402,326 NO

600 1,990,000 -16,035,531 NO -24,323,589 NO -29,850,582 NO

150 7,960,000 -64,137,829 NO -97,297,070 NO -119,402,326 NO

Northeast

H-S

Tariff

H-SL

Baja

Calfornia

Central

Northeast

Baja

Calfornia

Central


Annex

157

Source: Own display


2 d 4,5 kWh/m

2 d

Average

charged

capacity

demand per

month of PV

user

Average

consumption

per month of

PV user

Cost differenceCost


Cost


Cost

saving


500 8,100,000 -31,343,136 NO -65,085,669 NO -87,579,971 NO

250 4,050,000 -15,671,568 NO -32,542,835 NO -43,788,905 NO

1,000 16,200,000 -62,685,241 NO -130,169,554 NO -175,159,942 NO

1,000 4,050,000 -15,671,568 NO -32,542,835 NO -43,788,905 NO

250 16,200,000 -62,685,241 NO -130,169,554 NO -175,159,942 NO

500 8,100,000 -67,010,539 NO -100,753,072 NO -123,247,081 NO

250 4,050,000 -33,505,270 NO -50,376,536 NO -61,622,020 NO

1,000 16,200,000 -134,018,874 NO -201,503,383 NO -246,494,162 NO

1,000 4,050,000 -33,505,270 NO -50,376,536 NO -61,622,020 NO

250 16,200,000 -134,018,874 NO -201,503,383 NO -246,494,162 NO

500 8,100,000 -77,772,189 NO -111,514,723 NO -134,008,643 NO

250 4,050,000 -38,886,095 NO -55,757,361 NO -67,002,668 NO

1,000 16,200,000 -155,541,821 NO -223,026,388 NO -268,017,286 NO

1,000 4,050,000 -38,886,095 NO -55,757,361 NO -67,002,668 NO

250 16,200,000 -155,541,821 NO -223,026,388 NO -268,017,286 NO

500 39,000,000 -210,664,951 NO -373,127,904 NO -481,436,654 NO

250 19,500,000 -105,331,756 NO -186,562,890 NO -240,717,093 NO

1,000 78,000,000 -421,329,903 NO -746,253,684 NO -962,870,840 NO

1,000 19,500,000 -105,331,756 NO -186,562,890 NO -240,717,093 NO

250 78,000,000 -421,329,903 NO -746,253,684 NO -962,870,840 NO

500 39,000,000 -328,137,575 NO -490,600,661 NO -598,909,477 NO

250 19,500,000 -164,067,666 NO -245,298,934 NO -299,453,204 NO

1,000 78,000,000 -656,275,149 NO -981,198,529 NO -1,197,815,886 NO

1,000 19,500,000 -164,067,666 NO -245,298,934 NO -299,453,204 NO

250 78,000,000 -656,275,149 NO -981,198,529 NO -1,197,815,886 NO

500 39,000,000 -379,992,256 NO -542,455,402 NO -650,764,248 NO

250 19,500,000 -189,994,830 NO -271,226,157 NO -325,380,457 NO

1,000 78,000,000 -759,984,513 NO -1,084,907,715 NO -1,301,525,161 NO

1,000 19,500,000 -189,994,830 NO -271,226,157 NO -325,380,457 NO

250 78,000,000 -759,984,513 NO -1,084,907,715 NO -1,301,525,161 NO

Tariff

H-TL

Baja

Calfornia

Central

Peninsula

H-T

Baja

Calfornia

Central

Peninsula


Annex

158



2/d 4,5 kWh/m

2/d

Average

charged

capacity

demand per

month of PV

user

Average

consumption

per month of PV

user

Cost

difference

Cost

saving

Cost

difference

Cost

saving

Cost

difference

Cost

saving


270 7,263 YES 5,406 YES 4,477 YES

135 3,632 YES 3,243 YES 3,134 YES

540 14,527 YES 10,811 YES 13,430 YES

63 4,600 62,994 YES 48,812 YES 39,779 YES

26 2,300 29,644 YES 24,406 YES 19,890 YES

100 9,200 125,987 YES 97,624 YES 81,367 YES

100 2,300 29,644 YES 24,406 YES 19,890 YES

26 9,200 125,987 YES 97,624 YES 81,367 YES

50 5,300 16,344 YES 1,599 YES -8,471 NO

10 2,650 8,602 YES 834 YES -4,236 NO

99 10,600 33,548 YES 3,198 YES -16,943 NO

99 2,650 8,602 YES 834 YES -4,236 NO

10 10,600 33,548 YES 3,198 YES -16,943 NO

50 5,300 28,054 YES 13,412 YES 3,547 YES

10 2,650 14,765 YES 6,997 YES 1,773 YES

99 10,600 57,584 YES 26,823 YES 7,093 YES

99 2,650 14,765 YES 6,997 YES 1,773 YES

10 10,600 57,584 YES 26,823 YES 7,093 YES

50 5,300 21,042 YES 6,338 YES -3,650 NO

10 2,650 11,075 YES 3,307 YES -1,825 NO

99 10,600 43,191 YES 12,676 YES -7,300 NO

99 2,650 11,075 YES 3,307 YES -1,825 NO

10 10,600 43,191 YES 12,676 YES -7,300 NO

200 77,000 -26,923 NO -245,780 NO -391,063 NO

110 38,500 -13,509 NO -122,890 NO -196,053 NO

300 144,000 40,625 YES -349,647 NO -609,723 NO

300 38,500 -13,509 NO -122,890 NO -196,053 NO

110 144,000 40,625 YES -349,647 NO -609,723 NO

200 77,000 41,109 YES -177,587 NO -322,971 NO

110 38,500 20,628 YES -88,793 NO -161,916 NO

300 144,000 167,974 YES -222,339 NO -482,435 NO

300 38,500 20,628 YES -88,793 NO -161,916 NO

110 144,000 167,974 YES -222,339 NO -482,435 NO

200 77,000 -40,651 NO -259,541 NO -404,803 NO

110 38,500 -20,398 NO -129,770 NO -202,941 NO

300 144,000 14,928 YES -375,336 NO -635,408 NO

300 38,500 -20,398 NO -129,770 NO -202,941 NO

110 144,000 14,928 YES -375,336 NO -635,408 NO

200 60,000 247,428 YES 77,372 YES -36,097 NO

110 30,000 124,279 YES 38,833 YES -18,048 NO

300 120,000 494,857 YES 245,766 YES 28,865 YES

300 30,000 124,279 YES 38,833 YES -18,048 NO

110 120,000 494,857 YES 245,766 YES 28,865 YES

Central

Northeast

H-MC Northeast

Tariff

2

3

O-M

Baja

California

Central

Northeast

H-M

Baja

Calfornia


Annex

159


2/d 4,5 kWh/m

2/d

Average

charged

capacity

demand per

month of PV

user

Average

consumption

per month of PV

user

Cost

difference

Cost

saving

Cost

difference

Cost

saving

Cost

difference

Cost

saving


300 1,710,000 8,831,564 YES 4,497,656 YES 1,608,719 YES

150 855,000 4,415,075 YES 2,248,828 YES 804,263 YES

600 3,420,000 17,661,713 YES 8,995,311 YES 3,217,439 YES

600 855,000 4,415,075 YES 2,248,828 YES 804,263 YES

150 3,420,000 17,661,713 YES 8,995,311 YES 3,217,439 YES

300 1,710,000 2,037,898 YES -2,295,648 NO -5,184,674 NO

150 855,000 1,018,786 YES -1,147,824 NO -2,592,026 NO

600 3,420,000 4,075,469 YES -4,591,295 NO -10,369,349 NO

600 855,000 1,018,786 YES -1,147,824 NO -2,592,026 NO

150 3,420,000 4,075,469 YES -4,591,295 NO -10,369,349 NO

300 1,710,000 723,928 YES -3,609,547 NO -6,498,592 NO

150 855,000 361,906 YES -1,804,774 NO -3,248,906 NO

600 3,420,000 1,447,740 YES -7,219,095 NO -12,997,183 NO

600 855,000 361,906 YES -1,804,774 NO -3,248,906 NO

150 3,420,000 1,447,740 YES -7,219,095 NO -12,997,183 NO

300 3,980,000 14,926,898 YES 4,840,960 YES -1,883,058 NO

150 1,990,000 7,462,936 YES 2,420,341 YES -941,578 NO

600 7,960,000 29,853,795 YES 9,681,643 YES -3,766,116 NO

600 1,990,000 7,462,936 YES 2,420,341 YES -941,578 NO

150 7,960,000 29,853,795 YES 9,681,643 YES -3,766,116 NO

300 3,980,000 3,499,121 YES -6,586,948 NO -13,310,639 NO

150 1,990,000 1,749,440 YES -3,293,285 NO -6,655,663 NO

600 7,960,000 6,998,241 YES -13,173,518 NO -26,621,277 NO

600 1,990,000 1,749,440 YES -3,293,285 NO -6,655,663 NO

150 7,960,000 6,998,241 YES -13,173,518 NO -26,621,277 NO

300 3,980,000 398,987 YES -9,687,117 NO -16,410,719 NO

150 1,990,000 199,480 YES -4,843,281 NO -8,205,783 NO

600 7,960,000 797,974 YES -19,373,679 NO -32,821,438 NO

600 1,990,000 199,480 YES -4,843,281 NO -8,205,783 NO

150 7,960,000 797,974 YES -19,373,679 NO -32,821,438 NO

H-SL

Baja

Calfornia

Central

Northeast

H-S

Baja

Calfornia

Central

Northeast

Tariff


Annex

160

Source: Own display


2/d 4,5 kWh/m

2/d

Average

charged

capacity

demand per

month of PV

user

Average

consumption

per month of PV

user

Cost

difference

Cost

saving

Cost

difference

Cost

saving

Cost

difference

Cost

saving


500 8,100,000 34,735,601 YES 14,209,204 YES 524,806 YES

250 4,050,000 17,368,387 YES 7,104,402 YES 262,403 YES

1,000 16,200,000 69,471,201 YES 28,418,408 YES 1,049,613 YES

1,000 4,050,000 17,368,387 YES 7,104,402 YES 262,403 YES

250 16,200,000 69,471,201 YES 28,418,408 YES 1,049,613 YES

500 8,100,000 -931,401 NO -21,457,998 NO -35,142,195 NO

250 4,050,000 -465,716 NO -10,728,697 NO -17,571,098 NO

1,000 16,200,000 -1,862,802 NO -42,915,997 NO -70,284,390 NO

1,000 4,050,000 -465,716 NO -10,728,697 NO -17,571,098 NO

250 16,200,000 -1,862,802 NO -42,915,997 NO -70,284,390 NO

500 8,100,000 -11,692,930 NO -32,219,588 NO -45,903,724 NO

250 4,050,000 -5,846,663 NO -16,109,340 NO -22,951,862 NO

1,000 16,200,000 -23,385,860 NO -64,439,176 NO -91,807,448 NO

1,000 4,050,000 -5,846,663 NO -16,109,340 NO -22,951,862 NO

250 16,200,000 -23,385,860 NO -64,439,176 NO -91,807,448 NO

500 39,000,000 107,490,963 YES 8,659,462 YES -57,227,988 NO

250 19,500,000 53,745,482 YES 4,329,706 YES -28,613,994 NO

1,000 78,000,000 214,981,927 YES 17,318,924 YES -114,456,278 NO

1,000 19,500,000 53,745,482 YES 4,329,706 YES -28,613,994 NO

250 78,000,000 214,981,927 YES 17,318,924 YES -114,456,278 NO

500 39,000,000 -9,981,803 NO -108,813,167 NO -174,700,342 NO

250 19,500,000 -4,990,901 NO -54,406,265 NO -87,350,171 NO

1,000 78,000,000 -19,963,606 NO -217,626,334 NO -349,401,604 NO

1,000 19,500,000 -4,990,901 NO -54,406,265 NO -87,350,171 NO

250 78,000,000 -19,963,606 NO -217,626,334 NO -349,401,604 NO

500 39,000,000 -61,836,548 NO -160,667,851 NO -226,554,905 NO

250 19,500,000 -30,918,274 NO -80,333,456 NO -113,277,452 NO

1,000 78,000,000 -123,673,095 NO -321,335,702 NO -453,111,002 NO

1,000 19,500,000 -30,918,274 NO -80,333,456 NO -113,277,452 NO

250 78,000,000 -123,673,095 NO -321,335,702 NO -453,111,002 NO

H-TL

Baja

Calfornia

Central

Peninsula

H-T

Baja

Calfornia

Central

Peninsula

Tariff


Annex

161

Annex 24: Potential PV system capacities for macro-approach “No tariff change”

Source: Own display

Annex 25: Potential PV system capacities for macro-approach “No subsidies”

Source: Own display

Macro-approach "No tariff change"

Scenario 1

Tariff 1 Tariff 1A Tariff 1B Tariff 1C Tariff 1D Tariff 1E Tariff 1F

DAC

Scenario 2

Consumption range Tariff 1 Tariff 1A Tariff 1B Tariff 1C Tariff 1D Tariff 1E Tariff 1F

DAC 1.40 1.75 2.25 5.40 5.30 11.55 16.20

Scenario 3


Lower no niche no niche no niche no niche no niche 2.25 3.10

Higher 0.70 1.00 1.10 2.60 2.40 5.40 6.25

DAC 1.35 1.75 2.25 5.40 5.30 11.55 12.30

Average photovoltaic system capacities to be installed by users in niche

Consumption range

no niches

[kWp]

Macro-approach "No subsidies"

Scenario 1

Tariff 1 Tariff 1A Tariff 1B Tariff 1C Tariff 1D Tariff 1E Tariff 1F

DAC

Scenario 2


Lower 0.20 0.30 0.20 0.60 0.50 1.10 1.30

Higher 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.90 2.00 4.40 6.30

DAC 1.40 1.75 2.25 5.40 5.30 11.55 16.20

Scenario 3


Lower 0.30 0.40 0.30 0.90 0.80 1.70 2.00

Higher 1.00 1.20 1.60 3.00 3.20 7.00 10.00

DAC 2.20 2.80 3.60 8.60 8.50 18.50 19.70

no niches

Consumption range [kWp]

Average photovoltaic system capacities to be installed by users in niche


Annex

162

Annex 26: Scenario 1 - Cost comparison for different solar radiation data (residential sector)

Cost

difference PV

(partial) -

tariff

Cost

saving

Cost

difference PV

(partial) -

tariff

Cost

saving

Cost

difference PV

(partial) -

tariff

Cost

saving

[kWh/month] [$] [$] [$]

140 0 No 0 No 0 No

249 -46,880 No -29,095 No -16,815 No

250 24,845 Yes 42,502 Yes 55,895 Yes

300 41,740 Yes 53,116 Yes 61,737 Yes

140 0 No 0 No 0 No

249 -51,252 No -33,386 No -20,055 No

250 23,369 Yes 41,303 Yes 55,535 Yes

300 19,272 Yes 21,700 Yes 33,750 Yes

140 0 No 0 No 0 No

249 -51,960 No -33,223 No -19,765 No

250 19,758 Yes 38,558 Yes 52,080 Yes

300 17,973 Yes 32,677 Yes 32,680 Yes

140 0 No 0 No 0 No

249 -48,273 No -30,615 No -18,070 No

250 26,355 Yes 44,083 Yes 56,699 Yes

300 15,129 Yes 23,056 Yes 28,912 Yes

140 0 No 0 No 0 No

249 -63,282 No -43,285 No -28,711 No

250 24,084 Yes 44,137 Yes 58,769 Yes

300 23,903 Yes 32,964 Yes 39,733 Yes

150 0 No 0 No 0 No

299 -105,335 No -76,469 No -55,290 No

300 -20,737 No 8,182 Yes 29,416 Yes

360 5,078 Yes 16,984 Yes 33,529 Yes

150 0 No 0 No 0 No

299 -94,779 No -66,989 No -46,778 No

300 -13,642 No 14,202 Yes 34,467 Yes

360 11,902 Yes 23,142 Yes 31,702 Yes

150 0 No 0 No 0 No

299 -86,483 No -60,899 No -41,980 No

300 -5,344 No 20,290 Yes 39,260 Yes

360 17,174 Yes 27,376 Yes 35,085 Yes

150 0 No 0 No 0 No

299 -85,735 No -60,145 No -41,220 No

300 -1,110 No 24,540 Yes 44,180 Yes

360 13,088 Yes 23,294 Yes 31,001 Yes

ConsumptionTariff

1

Durango

Oaxaca

Guadalajara

Puebla

Distrito

Federal

Cuautla

Tepic

Nogales

Los Tuxtlas

1A

Radiation -15% Radiation ±0 Radiation +15%

City


Annex

163

Cost

difference PV

(partial) -

tariff

Cost

saving

Cost

difference PV

(partial) -

tariff

Cost

saving

Cost

difference PV

(partial) -

tariff

Cost

saving

[kWh/month] [$] [$] [$]

200 0 No 0 No 0 No

399 -65,783 No -41,313 No -23,327 No

400 35,240 Yes 59,801 Yes 78,294 Yes

528 8,605 Yes 33,204 Yes 51,378 Yes

200 0 No 0 No 0 No

399 -89,820 No -59,996 No -38,435 No

400 13,447 Yes 43,356 Yes 65,461 Yes

528 -14,524 No 15,471 Yes 37,653 Yes

200 0 No 0 No 0 No

399 -86,902 No -60,172 No -40,245 No

400 12,847 Yes 39,645 Yes 59,641 Yes

528 -7,510 No 19,445 Yes 39,539 Yes

200 0 No 0 No 0 No

399 -76,288 No -49,858 No -30,767 No

400 26,970 Yes 53,477 Yes 72,645 Yes

528 6,800 Yes 33,354 Yes 53,027 Yes

238 0 No 0 No 0 No

849 -306,104 No -221,654 No -159,336 No

850 -155,138 No -70,623 No -7,625 No

1,067 -57,450 No -9,352 No 26,362 Yes

238 0 No 0 No 0 No

849 -386,578 No -290,041 No -218,925 No

850 -226,099 No -129,507 No -58,334 No

1,067 -96,587 No -41,245 No -817 No

238 0 No 0 No 0 No

849 -420,938 No -317,734 No -241,992 No

850 -260,608 No -157,349 No -81,551 No

1,067 -93,855 No -34,917 No 9,003 Yes

238 0 No 0 No 0 No

849 -348,220 No -256,938 No -189,154 No

850 -177,988 No -86,650 No -18,810 No

1,067 -44,333 No 8,035 Yes 46,886 Yes

300 0 No 0 No 0 No

999 -418,671 No -306,618 No -224,242 No

1,000 -202,632 No -90,515 No -8,076 No

1,320 -125,892 No -43,719 No 17,118 Yes

300 0 No 0 No 0 No

999 -285,601 No -197,525 No -132,006 No

1,000 -59,872 No 28,904 Yes 94,423 Yes

1,320 -33,570 No 31,262 Yes 79,311 Yes

300 0 No 0 No 0 No

999 -292,163 No -209,087 No -148,028 No

1,000 -92,894 No -10,526 No 50,594 Yes

1,320 -55,036 No 5,368 Yes 50,465 Yes

300 0 No 0 No 0 No

999 -316,729 No -222,208 No -152,221 No

1,000 -106,783 No -11,553 No 58,434 Yes

1,320 -57,896 No 11,390 Yes 63,005 Yes

ConsumptionTariff

1B

Chihuahua

Acapulco

Poza Rica

1C

1D

Cd. Altamirano

Cd. Juárez

Monterrey

Tampico


City

Mérida

Mazatlán

La Paz

Matamoros

Riviera Maya


Annex

164

Source: Own display

Cost

difference PV

(partial) -

tariff

Cost

saving

Cost

difference PV

(partial) -

tariff

Cost

saving

Cost

difference PV

(partial) -

tariff

Cost

saving

[kWh/month] [$] [$] [$]

500 0 No 0 No 0 No

1,999 -785,991 No -567,164 No -405,810 No

2,000 -444,938 No -226,048 No -64,004 No

2,640 -290,602 No -136,350 No -22,647 No

500 0 No 0 No 0 No

1999 -538,471 No -347,748 No -207,472 No

2,000 -196,630 No -6,515 No 133,837 Yes

2,640 -112,041 No 21,752 Yes 120,825 Yes

500 0 No 0 No 0 No

1,999 -761,027 No -557,732 No -407,638 No

2,000 -455,068 No -251,712 No -101,557 No

2,640 -280,068 No -136,762 No -30,986 No

500 0 No 0 No 0 No

1999 -820,935 No -606,401 No -447,560 No

2,000 -514,975 No -300,385 No -141,489 No

2,640 -346,912 No -195,108 No -83,538 No

725 0 No 0 No 0 No

2,499 -722,822 No -531,723 No -390,542 No

2,750 -938,276 No -673,712 No -478,073 No

870 -136,807 No -102,144 No -75,609 No

725 0 No 0 No 0 No

2499 -755,386 No -567,686 No -428,910 No

2,750 -897,782 No -637,831 No -445,666 No

870 -138,046 No -103,558 No -77,982 No

725 0 No 0 No 0 No

2,499 -701,861 No -516,290 No -379,344 No

2,750 -794,302 No -544,197 No -358,931 No

870 -131,756 No -98,384 No -73,070 No

725 0 No 0 No 0 No

2499 -634,571 No -455,976 No -324,551 No

2,750 -730,123 No -483,347 No -300,951 No

870 -120,392 No -87,156 No -63,509 No

ConsumptionTariff

1E

Guaymas

Piedras

Negras

Reynosa

1F

Mexicali

San Luis Rio

Colorado

Cd. Obregón

Hermosillo


Culiacán

City


Annex

165


Cost

difference

PV (full) -

tariff

Cost

difference

PV (partial) -

tariff

Cost

difference

PV (full) -

tariff

Cost

difference

PV (partial) -

tariff

Cost

difference

PV (full) -

tariff

Cost

difference

PV (partial) -

tariff

[kWh/month] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$]

140 -48,731 0 -34,345 0 -23,711 0

249 -42,282 8,448 -14,259 23,427 6,454 32,547

250 63,913 114,580 92,061 128,626 112,867 140,126

300 69,065 112,636 103,469 121,915 128,897 128,633

140 -55,936 0 -40,469 0 -29,036 0

249 -56,315 4,998 -26,187 19,352 -3,919 30,017

250 54,092 115,385 84,355 129,839 106,723 141,827

300 56,967 65,495 93,954 63,113 121,293 77,102

140 -51,312 0 -36,538 0 -25,618 0

249 -47,308 6,189 -18,531 21,079 2,739 31,931

250 58,864 112,309 87,770 127,293 109,135 138,238

300 62,894 64,329 98,223 80,729 124,336 76,273

140 -53,111 0 -38,067 0 -26,948 0

249 -50,812 7,144 -21,510 21,193 149 31,447

250 59,620 117,542 89,053 131,693 110,808 142,050

300 63,723 57,920 99,697 64,363 126,286 69,249

140 -64,690 0 -47,909 0 -35,506 0

249 -73,365 -3,754 -40,680 12,243 -16,521 23,991

250 55,739 125,358 88,570 141,439 112,837 153,271

300 58,562 76,017 98,689 83,382 128,349 88,867

150 -85,646 0 -66,078 0 -51,614 0

299 -108,066 -26,136 -65,172 -3,056 -33,467 13,937

300 16,955 98,909 60,006 122,069 91,826 139,141

360 11,584 59,511 64,028 68,825 102,791 87,929

150 -79,316 0 -60,697 0 -46,935 0

299 -94,189 -15,088 -53,377 7,156 -23,211 23,469

300 25,752 104,872 66,714 127,196 96,990 143,588

360 22,395 68,049 72,294 77,129 109,175 83,758

150 -73,950 0 -56,139 0 -42,975 0

299 -82,397 -12,564 -43,357 7,926 -14,501 23,083

300 37,613 107,399 76,796 127,963 105,757 143,194

360 36,844 71,335 84,575 79,633 119,855 85,754

150 -73,376 0 -55,648 0 -42,544 0

299 -81,169 -11,466 -42,309 9,033 -13,587 24,199

300 43,950 113,621 82,952 134,207 111,779 149,681

360 44,470 65,331 91,981 73,635 127,098 79,754

Radiation +15%Radiation -15% Radiation ±0

City

Cuautla

Tepic

Nogales

Los Tuxtlas

1A

ConsumptionTariff

1

Durango

Oaxaca

Guadalajara

Puebla

Distrito

Federal


Annex

166

Cost

difference

PV (full) -

tariff

Cost

difference

PV (partial) -

tariff

Cost

difference

PV (full) -

tariff

Cost

difference

PV (partial) -

tariff

Cost

difference

PV (full) -

tariff

Cost

difference

PV (partial) -

tariff

[kWh/month] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$]

200 -74,033 0 -52,690 0 -36,914 0

399 -58,166 12,647 -12,551 32,243 21,164 46,772

400 91,072 161,826 136,809 181,555 170,614 196,087

528 109,010 122,689 170,358 142,476 215,703 157,282

200 -91,362 0 -67,422 0 -49,727 0

399 -95,107 378 -43,943 24,124 -6,127 41,676

400 57,375 152,855 108,675 176,725 146,593 194,333

528 62,809 112,500 131,620 136,496 182,480 154,218

200 -104,517 0 -78,604 0 -59,450 0

399 -123,220 -7,975 -67,839 13,454 -26,906 29,351

400 24,104 139,332 79,632 160,863 120,675 176,860

528 18,082 110,166 92,565 131,925 147,617 148,066

200 -89,027 0 -65,437 0 -48,001 0

399 -90,116 4,647 -39,701 25,636 -2,438 41,046

400 62,379 157,109 112,929 178,212 150,292 193,736

528 69,522 128,217 137,325 149,388 187,441 164,910

238 -132,505 0 -101,753 0 -79,023 0

849 -218,375 -72,784 -99,128 -5,210 -10,988 44,717

850 4,217 149,779 123,609 217,448 211,855 267,631

1,067 -5,869 131,218 144,927 169,918 256,385 198,599

238 -163,238 0 -127,876 0 -101,738 0

849 -337,547 -138,233 -200,424 -61,079 -99,072 -4,174

850 -101,053 98,306 36,237 175,543 137,712 232,531

1,067 -137,333 104,200 36,068 148,337 164,234 180,971

238 -154,595 0 -120,535 0 -95,361 0

849 -303,618 -158,978 -171,545 -76,488 -73,926 -15,759

850 -67,341 77,344 64,891 159,915 162,629 220,724

1,067 -95,790 125,315 71,224 172,506 194,669 207,297

238 -146,529 0 -113,679 0 -89,399 0

849 -272,340 -102,693 -144,959 -29,542 -50,808 24,698

850 -21,490 148,177 106,045 221,411 200,311 275,734

1,067 -37,998 169,081 123,083 211,080 242,143 242,139

300 -178,375 0 -137,637 0 -107,526 0

999 -300,532 -116,238 -156,244 -26,695 -49,597 39,319

1,000 17,614 201,938 162,050 291,575 268,807 357,682

1,320 11,100 181,597 202,941 247,314 344,736 295,806

300 -138,957 0 -104,131 0 -78,391 0

999 -160,921 -24,812 -37,575 45,859 53,594 98,258

1,000 171,528 307,602 295,001 378,557 386,264 430,956

1,320 229,198 240,662 393,195 292,796 514,411 331,422

300 -162,772 0 -124,374 0 -95,993 0

999 -245,271 -60,479 -109,272 5,820 -8,751 54,641

1,000 47,181 232,313 183,319 298,315 283,943 347,224

1,320 50,550 189,789 231,370 238,391 365,019 274,167

300 -145,587 0 -109,779 0 -83,312 0

999 -183,749 -43,038 -56,924 32,642 36,816 88,632

1,000 125,500 266,185 252,455 342,163 346,292 398,152

1,320 153,144 224,995 321,767 280,698 446,401 321,591


City

Mérida

Mazatlán

La Paz

Matamoros

Riviera Maya

1C

1D

Cd. Altamirano

Cd. Juárez

Monterrey

Tampico

1B

Chihuahua

Acapulco

Poza Rica

ConsumptionTariff


Annex

167

Source: Own display

Cost

difference

PV (full) -

tariff

Cost

difference

PV (partial) -

tariff

Cost

difference

PV (full) -

tariff

Cost

difference

PV (partial) -

tariff

Cost

difference

PV (full) -

tariff

Cost

difference

PV (partial) -

tariff

[kWh/month] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$]

500 -327,670 0 -256,399 0 -203,720 0

1,999 -533,572 -178,587 -237,383 -3,540 -18,461 125,726

2,000 -31,717 323,275 264,622 498,415 483,655 627,952

2,640 -52,874 260,801 339,494 384,094 629,504 475,317

500 -234,082 0 -176,849 0 -134,546 0

1999 -144,637 57,953 93,211 210,295 269,012 322,718

2,000 357,415 560,228 595,384 712,422 771,274 824,956

2,640 462,356 433,195 777,439 540,555 1,010,327 619,948

500 -360,706 0 -284,479 0 -228,138 0

1,999 -670,863 -211,058 -354,080 -48,422 -119,937 71,735

2,000 -220,580 239,240 96,363 401,965 330,625 522,212

2,640 -302,794 227,948 116,854 342,593 427,029 427,374

500 -361,734 0 -285,353 0 -228,897 0

1999 -675,133 -247,777 -357,710 -76,062 -123,093 50,998

2,000 -224,853 202,522 92,731 374,318 327,467 501,460

2,640 -308,451 166,167 112,045 287,349 422,848 376,926

725 -403,982 0 -311,109 0 -242,463 0

2,499 -606,403 -209,202 -278,161 -56,306 -35,547 56,703

2,750 -588,820 -197,122 -227,276 14,642 39,953 171,234

870 -442,448 -43,380 -330,336 -15,499 -247,471 5,644

725 -453,337 0 -353,060 0 -278,942 0

2499 -780,837 -272,663 -426,429 -122,533 -164,476 -11,570

2,750 -655,066 -159,186 -264,702 48,775 23,828 202,492

870 -502,026 -48,175 -380,978 -20,551 -291,507 -74

725 -403,795 0 -310,949 0 -242,324 0

2,499 -605,741 -202,941 -277,598 -54,450 -35,057 55,311

2,750 -462,206 -50,267 -100,771 149,919 166,376 297,962

870 -442,222 -44,137 -330,144 -17,410 -247,304 2,682

725 -350,887 0 -265,978 0 -203,218 0

2499 -418,749 -136,786 -118,655 5,916 103,154 111,282

2,750 -256,243 29,163 74,297 226,688 318,610 372,744

870 -378,355 -29,672 -275,857 -3,143 -200,097 15,987


Culiacán

City

1F

Mexicali

San Luis Rio

Colorado

Cd. Obregón

Hermosillo

1E

Guaymas

Piedras

Negras

Reynosa

ConsumptionTariff


Annex

168


Cost

difference

PV (full) -

tariff

Cost

difference

PV (partial) -

tariff

Cost

difference

PV (full) -

tariff

Cost

difference

PV (partial) -

tariff

Cost

difference

PV (full) -

tariff

Cost

difference

PV (partial) -

tariff

[kWh/month] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$]

140 -12,765 0 -3,773 0 2,873 0

249 27,776 43,108 45,290 53,088 58,236 58,209

250 134,284 149,573 151,876 158,287 164,879 166,121

300 155,073 135,632 176,575 141,578 192,468 145,630

140 -17,267 0 -7,600 0 -455 0

249 19,005 40,992 37,835 50,013 51,753 56,678

250 129,749 151,711 148,663 160,833 162,643 168,822

300 149,436 82,158 172,553 77,111 189,639 89,433

140 -14,377 0 -5,144 0 1,681 0

249 24,634 43,182 42,620 52,406 55,913 59,259

250 131,128 149,636 149,194 158,953 162,547 165,900

300 151,216 81,326 173,297 95,393 189,617 88,937

140 -15,502 0 -6,099 0 850 0

249 22,444 42,138 40,758 50,854 54,295 57,443

250 133,203 152,869 151,599 161,687 165,196 168,378

300 153,658 73,917 176,142 78,027 192,760 81,247

140 -22,738 0 -12,251 0 -4,499 0

249 8,348 36,238 28,777 46,236 43,876 53,652

250 137,817 165,684 158,337 175,765 173,504 183,265

300 158,880 94,347 183,960 99,045 202,497 102,531

150 -36,725 0 -24,494 0 -15,455 0

299 -830 31,520 25,979 45,935 45,794 56,595

300 124,582 156,898 151,489 171,393 171,377 182,133

360 142,694 82,840 175,472 88,488 199,698 105,259

150 -32,768 0 -21,131 0 -12,530 0

299 7,843 40,568 33,351 54,481 52,205 64,795

300 128,157 160,862 153,758 174,853 172,680 185,246

360 147,142 90,712 178,329 96,459 201,380 100,422

150 -29,424 0 -18,292 0 -10,065 0

299 15,204 38,760 39,604 51,584 57,639 61,076

300 135,570 159,056 160,059 171,955 178,160 181,520

360 156,173 91,998 186,005 97,296 208,055 101,085

150 -29,056 0 -17,976 0 -9,786 0

299 15,981 39,858 40,268 52,692 58,220 62,192

300 141,454 165,278 165,830 178,198 183,847 187,674

360 163,248 85,994 192,942 91,299 214,890 95,085

ConsumptionTariff

Radiation +15%

1

Durango

Oaxaca

Guadalajara

Puebla

Distrito

Federal

Radiation -15%

Nogales

Los Tuxtlas

1A

Radiation ±0

City

Cuautla

Tepic


Annex

169

Cost

difference

PV (full) -

tariff

Cost

difference

PV (partial) -

tariff

Cost

difference

PV (full) -

tariff

Cost

difference

PV (partial) -

tariff

Cost

difference

PV (full) -

tariff

Cost

difference

PV (partial) -

tariff

[kWh/month] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$]

200 -20,674 0 -7,334 0 2,526 0

399 55,871 61,637 84,380 73,901 105,452 83,099

400 205,414 211,150 233,999 223,547 255,128 232,414

528 262,381 172,013 300,723 184,468 329,064 193,942

200 -31,512 0 -16,550 0 -5,490 0

399 32,802 59,700 64,779 74,448 88,415 85,668

400 185,626 212,510 217,688 227,382 241,387 238,325

528 234,836 172,489 277,843 187,486 309,630 198,543

200 -39,734 0 -23,538 0 -11,567 0

399 15,231 45,681 49,844 59,113 75,428 69,010

400 162,925 193,322 197,630 206,854 223,282 216,852

528 204,288 164,489 250,839 178,250 285,247 188,392

200 -30,053 0 -15,309 0 -4,411 0

399 35,921 56,970 67,431 69,961 90,720 79,706

400 188,753 209,766 220,347 222,870 243,698 232,729

528 239,031 181,207 281,409 194,379 312,731 203,903

238 -55,624 0 -36,404 0 -22,197 0

849 79,743 96,184 154,273 138,430 209,360 169,693

850 302,697 319,080 377,317 361,421 432,471 392,607

1,067 371,121 227,867 465,369 252,236 535,030 270,252

238 -74,832 0 -52,730 0 -36,394 0

849 5,261 54,397 90,963 102,557 154,308 138,133

850 242,171 291,270 327,977 339,512 391,399 375,171

1,067 296,169 214,512 404,545 241,986 484,649 262,622

238 -69,445 0 -48,158 0 -32,424 0

849 26,564 46,983 109,109 98,479 170,121 136,545

850 263,241 283,639 345,886 335,215 406,972 373,362

1,067 321,745 243,293 426,129 272,821 503,282 294,280

238 -64,404 0 -43,873 0 -28,697 0

849 46,113 80,606 125,726 126,429 184,570 160,339

850 297,349 331,809 377,058 377,715 435,974 411,708

1,067 364,705 274,061 465,381 300,396 539,793 319,791

300 -76,529 0 -51,068 0 -32,248 0

999 60,188 107,386 150,368 163,270 217,022 204,621

1,000 378,704 425,896 468,977 481,872 535,700 523,317

1,320 490,702 345,899 610,603 386,954 699,225 417,117

300 -51,893 0 -30,127 0 -14,039 0

999 147,445 152,155 224,536 196,498 281,517 229,234

1,000 480,211 484,902 557,381 529,195 614,420 561,931

1,320 639,191 370,637 741,690 403,441 817,449 427,737

300 -66,777 0 -42,779 0 -25,040 0

999 94,726 104,823 179,725 146,127 242,551 176,618

1,000 387,527 397,615 472,613 438,955 535,503 469,535

1,320 502,599 311,100 615,611 341,704 699,142 363,816

300 -56,067 0 -33,687 0 -17,145 0

999 133,314 146,260 212,580 193,612 271,167 228,605

1,000 442,889 455,816 522,236 503,132 580,884 538,126

1,320 574,701 363,968 680,091 399,009 757,987 424,239

ConsumptionTariff

Radiation +15%Radiation -15%

1B

Chihuahua

Acapulco

Poza Rica

1C

1D

Cd. Altamirano

Cd. Juárez

Monterrey

Tampico

Radiation ±0

City

Mérida

Mazatlán

La Paz

Matamoros

Riviera Maya


Annex

170

Source: Own display

Cost

difference

PV (full) -

tariff

Cost

difference

PV (partial) -

tariff

Cost

difference

PV (full) -

tariff

Cost

difference

PV (partial) -

tariff

Cost

difference

PV (full) -

tariff

Cost

difference

PV (partial) -

tariff

[kWh/month] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$]

500 -149,492 0 -104,947 0 -72,023 0

1,999 206,900 258,997 392,018 368,390 528,844 449,332

2,000 709,130 761,192 894,342 870,678 1,031,237 951,557

2,640 928,045 569,076 1,173,275 646,045 1,354,532 703,274

500 -90,999 0 -55,228 0 -28,789 0

1999 449,984 438,548 598,640 533,567 708,515 603,998

2,000 952,337 940,823 1,101,068 1,036,027 1,210,999 1,106,570

2,640 1,250,064 701,144 1,446,991 768,512 1,592,546 818,244

500 -170,139 0 -122,498 0 -87,284 0

1,999 121,093 195,532 319,082 297,180 465,422 372,345

2,000 571,777 646,163 769,866 747,900 916,280 823,155

2,640 746,327 514,560 1,008,607 586,214 1,202,466 639,334

500 -170,782 0 -123,043 0 -87,759 0

1999 118,424 181,809 316,814 289,202 463,449 368,604

2,000 569,107 632,441 767,597 739,916 914,306 819,400

2,640 742,791 469,110 1,005,601 544,634 1,199,853 600,883

725 -171,798 0 -113,752 0 -70,848 0

2,499 214,203 173,059 419,355 268,632 570,988 339,316

2,750 315,041 332,445 541,006 464,890 708,024 562,827

870 -162,168 27,273 -92,098 44,822 -40,308 57,967

725 -202,645 0 -139,971 0 -93,648 0

2499 105,182 102,599 326,687 196,407 490,408 265,711

2,750 320,844 360,716 564,821 490,691 745,153 586,753

870 -199,405 21,145 -123,749 38,438 -67,830 51,250

725 -171,681 0 -113,652 0 -70,762 0

2,499 214,617 168,322 419,706 261,157 571,294 329,926

2,750 441,381 450,305 667,278 575,506 834,245 667,892

870 -162,027 22,850 -91,978 39,579 -40,203 52,006

725 -138,613 0 -85,545 0 -46,320 0

2499 331,487 219,813 519,046 308,859 657,676 374,899

2,750 570,108 523,070 776,696 646,609 929,391 738,008

870 -122,110 36,316 -58,049 52,846 -10,699 64,978

ConsumptionTariff

Radiation +15%Radiation -15%

1E

Guaymas

Piedras

Negras

Reynosa

1F

Mexicali

San Luis Rio

Colorado

Cd. Obregón

Hermosillo

Radiation ±0

Culiacán

City


Annex

171

Annex 29: Scenario 1 - Cost comparison for different discount rates (residential sector)

Cost

difference PV

(full) - tariff

Cost

difference PV

(partial) -

tariff

Cost

saving

Cost

difference PV

(partial) -

tariff

Cost

saving

Cost

difference PV

(partial) -

tariff

Cost

saving

[kWh/month] [$] [$] [$] [$]

140 -57,705 0 No 0 No 0 No

249 -59,902 609 Yes -29,095 No -46,663 No

250 45,927 105,524 Yes 42,502 Yes 5,140 Yes

300 47,106 106,501 Yes 53,116 Yes 21,453 Yes

140 -65,574 0 No 0 No 0 No

249 -75,230 -4,221 No -33,386 No -50,631 No

250 34,794 105,712 Yes 41,303 Yes 3,122 Yes

300 33,405 52,205 Yes 21,700 Yes 3,614 Yes

140 -60,523 0 No 0 No 0 No

249 -65,392 -3,011 No -33,223 No -51,088 No

250 40,412 102,661 Yes 38,558 Yes 561 Yes

300 40,366 69,262 Yes 32,677 Yes 10,981 Yes

140 -62,488 0 No 0 No 0 No

249 -69,219 -1,618 No -30,615 No -47,763 No

250 40,832 108,328 Yes 44,083 Yes 5,997 Yes

300 40,784 53,707 Yes 23,056 Yes 4,883 Yes

140 -75,135 0 No 0 No 0 No

249 -93,853 -13,868 No -43,285 No -60,671 No

250 34,811 114,723 Yes 44,137 Yes 2,295 Yes

300 33,009 71,140 Yes 32,964 Yes 10,325 Yes

150 -97,799 0 No 0 No 0 No

299 -134,921 -40,630 No -76,469 No -97,630 No

300 -10,336 83,901 Yes 8,182 Yes -36,669 No

360 -21,637 53,555 Yes 16,984 Yes -4,690 No

150 -90,885 0 No 0 No 0 No

299 -119,764 -29,167 No -66,989 No -89,332 No

300 -241 90,292 Yes 14,202 Yes -30,875 No

360 -9,245 62,092 Yes 23,142 Yes 53 Yes

150 -85,021 0 No 0 No 0 No

299 -106,881 -25,587 No -60,899 No -81,760 No

300 12,715 93,870 Yes 20,290 Yes -23,304 No

360 6,537 65,868 Yes 27,376 Yes 4,556 Yes

150 -84,397 0 No 0 No 0 No

299 -105,542 -24,483 No -60,145 No -81,215 No

300 19,149 100,097 Yes 24,540 Yes -20,230 No

360 14,282 59,886 Yes 23,294 Yes 1,603 Yes

Discount rate 4% Discount rate 8% Discount rate 12%

Distrito

Federal

Los Tuxtlas

1A

Cuautla

Tepic

Nogales

1

Tariff CityConsumption

Durango

Oaxaca

Guadalajara

Puebla


Annex

172

Cost

difference PV

(full) - tariff

Cost

difference PV

(partial) -

tariff

Cost

saving

Cost

difference PV

(partial) -

tariff

Cost

saving

Cost

difference PV

(partial) -

tariff

Cost

saving

[kWh/month] [$] [$] [$] [$]

200 -87,341 0 No 0 No 0 No

399 -86,877 198 Yes -41,313 No -65,862 No

400 61,881 148,851 Yes 59,801 Yes 7,009 Yes

528 69,891 109,878 Yes 33,204 Yes -12,234 No

200 -106,266 0 No 0 No 0 No

399 -127,229 -14,547 No -59,996 No -86,862 No

400 24,754 137,387 Yes 43,356 Yes -12,371 No

528 19,092 97,011 Yes 15,471 Yes -32,835 No

200 -120,634 0 No 0 No 0 No

399 -157,935 -21,608 No -60,172 No -82,961 No

400 -11,103 125,147 Yes 39,645 Yes -11,027 No

528 -29,103 96,032 Yes 19,445 Yes -25,931 No

200 -103,716 0 No 0 No 0 No

399 -121,778 -8,437 No -49,858 No -74,347 No

400 30,220 143,472 Yes 53,477 Yes 132 Yes

528 26,423 114,470 Yes 33,354 Yes -14,716 No

238 -151,609 0 No 0 No 0 No

849 -293,253 -115,386 No -221,654 No -284,403 No

850 -71,353 106,414 Yes -70,623 No -175,414 No

1,067 -101,286 106,310 Yes -9,352 No -77,845 No

238 -185,177 0 No 0 No 0 No

849 -423,415 -186,445 No -290,041 No -351,150 No

850 -187,665 49,282 Yes -129,507 No -235,285 No

1,067 -246,701 76,095 Yes -41,245 No -110,705 No

238 -175,733 0 No 0 No 0 No

849 -386,382 -210,505 No -317,734 No -380,971 No

850 -150,845 25,004 Yes -157,349 No -265,214 No

1,067 -201,228 95,086 Yes -34,917 No -111,882 No

238 -166,923 0 No 0 No 0 No

849 -352,218 -149,112 No -256,938 No -320,580 No

850 -102,144 100,908 Yes -86,650 No -197,658 No

1,067 -139,837 141,992 Yes 8,035 Yes -71,308 No

300 -203,675 0 No 0 No 0 No

999 -391,035 -172,350 No -306,618 No -385,878 No

1,000 -73,842 144,804 Yes -90,515 No -229,806 No

1,320 -110,338 139,523 Yes -43,719 No -152,207 No

300 -160,622 0 No 0 No 0 No

999 -238,548 -69,824 No -197,525 No -272,988 No

1,000 92,924 261,975 Yes 28,904 Yes -109,158 No

1,320 124,791 207,125 Yes 31,262 Yes -72,919 No

300 -186,633 0 No 0 No 0 No

999 -330,677 -101,830 No -209,087 No -272,433 No

1,000 -39,103 189,620 Yes -10,526 No -129,054 No

1,320 -64,020 158,491 Yes 5,368 Yes -85,324 No

300 -167,855 0 No 0 No 0 No

999 -263,516 -90,931 No -222,208 No -299,768 No

1,000 44,816 217,753 Yes -11,553 No -147,351 No

1,320 46,016 189,180 Yes 11,390 Yes -93,917 No


Cd.

Altamirano

Riviera Maya

1D

Mérida

Mazatlán

La Paz

Matamoros

1C

Cd. Juárez

Monterrey

Tampico

1B

Chihuahua

Acapulco

Poza Rica



Annex

173

Source: Own display

Cost

difference PV

(full) - tariff

Cost

difference PV

(partial) -

tariff

Cost

saving

Cost

difference PV

(partial) -

tariff

Cost

saving

Cost

difference PV

(partial) -

tariff

Cost

saving

[kWh/month] [$] [$] [$] [$]

500 -371,890 0 No 0 No 0 No

1,999 -719,577 -288,850 No -567,164 No -731,514 No

2,000 -219,173 211,493 Yes -226,048 No -484,991 No

2,640 -301,045 182,105 Yes -136,350 No -324,840 No

500 -269,670 0 No 0 No 0 No

1999 -294,772 -38,267 No -347,748 No -530,744 No

2,000 205,848 462,249 Yes -6,515 No -284,136 No

2,640 261,704 364,221 Yes 21,752 Yes -181,094 No

500 -407,973 0 No 0 No 0 No

1,999 -869,530 -313,414 No -557,732 No -701,956 No

2,000 -420,565 135,501 Yes -251,712 No -480,826 No

2,640 -567,556 154,778 Yes -136,762 No -309,310 No

500 -409,095 0 No 0 No 0 No

1999 -874,194 -356,064 No -606,401 No -754,148 No

2,000 -425,232 92,845 Yes -300,385 No -533,022 No

2,640 -573,734 89,201 Yes -195,108 No -363,325 No

725 -461,667 0 No 0 No 0 No

2,499 -812,497 -305,426 No -531,723 No -665,295 No

2,750 -816,037 -330,799 No -673,712 No -876,231 No

870 -512,205 -61,733 No -102,144 No -125,991 No

725 -515,574 0 No 0 No 0 No

2499 -1,003,018 -366,872 No -567,686 No -686,137 No

2,750 -900,343 -290,366 No -637,831 No -843,075 No

870 -577,277 -65,748 No -103,558 No -125,863 No

725 -461,463 0 No 0 No 0 No

2,499 -811,774 -296,416 No -516,290 No -646,072 No

2,750 -689,696 -176,967 No -544,197 No -761,227 No

870 -511,958 -61,082 No -98,384 No -120,393 No

725 -403,675 0 No 0 No 0 No

2499 -607,537 -226,498 No -455,976 No -591,497 No

2,750 -464,737 -96,060 No -483,347 No -712,307 No

870 -442,200 -46,086 No -87,156 No -111,406 No


Piedras

Negras

Mexicali

San Luis Rio

Colorado

Cd. Obregón

1E

1F

Hermosillo

Culiacán

Guaymas

Reynosa



Annex

174


Cost

difference PV

(full) - tariff

Cost

difference PV

(partial) -

tariff

Cost

difference PV

(full) - tariff

Cost

difference PV

(partial) -

tariff

Cost

difference PV

(full) - tariff

Cost

difference PV

(partial) -

tariff

[kWh/month] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$]

140 -14,670 0 -34,345 0 -45,968 0

249 48,561 68,924 -14,259 23,427 -51,451 -3,539

250 204,668 223,078 92,061 128,626 25,292 72,577

300 236,887 201,583 103,469 121,915 24,363 74,627

140 -20,965 0 -40,469 0 -51,985 0

249 36,298 64,119 -26,187 19,352 -63,172 -7,178

250 198,615 226,411 84,355 129,839 16,612 72,534

300 229,350 108,809 93,954 63,113 13,686 35,996

140 -16,925 0 -36,538 0 -48,123 0

249 44,168 67,427 -18,531 21,079 -55,649 -6,389

250 200,256 223,457 87,770 127,293 21,075 70,231

300 231,494 135,401 98,223 80,729 19,209 48,281

140 -18,497 0 -38,067 0 -49,626 0

249 41,107 65,651 -21,510 21,193 -58,576 -5,155

250 203,445 227,962 89,053 131,693 21,228 74,566

300 235,253 110,252 99,697 64,363 19,328 37,130

140 -28,614 0 -47,909 0 -59,296 0

249 21,400 57,588 -40,680 12,243 -77,412 -14,624

250 211,160 247,295 88,570 141,439 15,891 78,624

300 244,070 140,454 98,689 83,382 12,503 49,510

150 -48,327 0 -66,078 0 -76,534 0

299 10,813 52,663 -65,172 -3,056 -110,119 -36,052

300 194,631 236,404 60,006 122,069 -19,778 54,250

360 223,806 123,787 64,028 68,825 -30,655 36,215

150 -42,795 0 -60,697 0 -71,247 0

299 22,938 65,683 -53,377 7,156 -98,529 -27,512

300 199,283 241,973 66,714 127,196 -11,857 59,110

360 229,610 135,567 72,294 77,129 -20,939 42,453

150 -38,122 0 -56,139 0 -66,762 0

299 33,228 62,535 -43,357 7,926 -88,677 -24,423

300 209,648 238,821 76,796 127,963 -1,951 62,198

360 242,235 137,293 84,575 79,633 -8,871 45,416

150 -37,605 0 -55,648 0 -66,286 0

299 34,316 64,158 -42,309 9,033 -87,654 -23,622

300 218,219 247,971 82,952 134,207 2,769 66,716

360 252,541 128,504 91,981 73,635 -3,189 41,077

Discount rate 12%

1


Durango

Oaxaca

Guadalajara

Puebla

Discount rate 4%

Los Tuxtlas

1A

Cuautla

Tepic

Nogales

Distrito

Federal

Discount rate 8%


Annex

175

Cost

difference PV

(full) - tariff

Cost

difference PV

(partial) -

tariff

Cost

difference PV

(full) - tariff

Cost

difference PV

(partial) -

tariff

Cost

difference PV

(full) - tariff

Cost

difference PV

(partial) -

tariff

[kWh/month] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$]

200 -24,309 0 -52,690 0 -69,453 0

399 94,664 95,836 -12,551 32,243 -76,039 -5,448

400 313,832 315,021 136,809 181,555 31,850 102,355

528 401,687 257,756 170,358 142,476 33,209 74,080

200 -39,463 0 -67,422 0 -83,924 0

399 62,416 94,045 -43,943 24,124 -106,897 -17,308

400 286,395 318,050 108,675 176,725 3,327 92,875

528 363,417 259,488 131,620 136,496 -5,775 63,537

200 -50,957 0 -78,604 0 -94,911 0

399 37,851 72,969 -67,839 13,454 -130,377 -21,804

400 254,317 289,364 79,632 160,863 -23,893 84,621

528 320,244 247,349 92,565 131,925 -42,358 63,453

200 -37,422 0 -65,437 0 -81,974 0

399 66,777 89,264 -39,701 25,636 -102,729 -12,070

400 290,768 313,232 112,929 178,212 7,507 98,095

528 369,282 271,383 137,325 149,388 -168 77,009

238 -72,884 0 -101,753 0 -118,763 0

849 150,295 159,900 -99,128 -5,210 -246,765 -102,992

850 477,044 486,562 123,609 217,448 -85,819 57,880

1,067 586,117 345,002 144,927 169,918 -116,492 66,079

238 -99,738 0 -127,876 0 -144,431 0

849 46,165 101,353 -200,424 -61,079 -346,296 -157,228

850 393,371 448,478 36,237 175,543 -175,307 13,747

1,067 482,625 326,595 36,068 148,337 -228,437 42,638

238 -92,211 0 -120,535 0 -137,209 0

849 75,965 91,990 -171,545 -76,488 -317,988 -176,205

850 422,827 438,793 64,891 159,915 -147,152 -5,388

1,067 518,311 369,785 71,224 172,506 -193,625 55,521

238 -85,162 0 -113,679 0 -130,472 0

849 103,295 138,627 -144,959 -29,542 -291,865 -129,115

850 471,490 506,752 106,045 221,411 -110,480 52,229

1,067 579,599 413,482 123,083 211,080 -147,394 91,027

300 -100,718 0 -137,637 0 -159,385 0

999 128,662 182,447 -156,244 -26,695 -324,848 -150,537

1,000 595,445 649,215 162,050 291,575 -94,767 79,514

1,320 772,857 525,273 202,941 247,314 -134,766 82,481

300 -66,275 0 -104,131 0 -126,463 0

999 250,652 242,897 -37,575 45,859 -208,246 -70,876

1,000 738,309 730,419 295,001 378,557 32,200 169,844

1,320 982,638 558,102 393,195 292,796 43,762 135,418

300 -87,084 0 -124,374 0 -146,354 0

999 176,948 172,175 -109,272 5,820 -278,694 -92,709

1,000 606,046 601,174 183,319 298,315 -67,198 118,692

1,320 787,199 469,828 231,370 238,391 -98,019 101,119

300 -72,116 0 -109,779 0 -131,991 0

999 230,921 235,579 -56,924 32,642 -227,352 -87,575

1,000 684,596 689,138 252,455 342,163 -3,695 136,375

1,320 889,434 549,316 321,767 280,698 -14,709 121,370

Discount rate 12%


Discount rate 4%

1B

Chihuahua

Acapulco

Poza Rica

Riviera Maya

1D

Mérida

Mazatlán

La Paz

Matamoros

1C

Cd. Juárez

Monterrey

Tampico

Cd.

Altamirano

Discount rate 8%


Annex

176

Source: Own display

Cost

difference PV

(full) - tariff

Cost

difference PV

(partial) -

tariff

Cost

difference PV

(full) - tariff

Cost

difference PV

(partial) -

tariff

Cost

difference PV

(full) - tariff

Cost

difference PV

(partial) -

tariff

[kWh/month] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$]

500 -199,071 0 -256,399 0 -290,133 0

1,999 386,248 428,613 -237,383 -3,540 -606,529 -259,480

2,000 1,122,238 1,164,545 264,622 498,415 -243,529 103,473

2,640 1,469,959 868,361 339,494 384,094 -330,316 96,959

500 -117,295 0 -176,849 0 -211,969 0

1999 726,093 685,205 93,211 210,295 -281,694 -71,151

2,000 1,462,255 1,421,391 595,384 712,422 81,471 291,927

2,640 1,920,158 1,057,984 777,439 540,555 100,000 233,646

500 -227,938 0 -284,479 0 -317,725 0

1,999 266,286 332,136 -354,080 -48,422 -721,193 -273,767

2,000 926,745 992,504 96,363 401,965 -395,515 51,875

2,640 1,211,327 786,168 116,854 342,593 -531,450 79,593

500 -228,836 0 -285,353 0 -318,583 0

1999 262,555 314,567 -357,710 -76,062 -724,759 -307,349

2,000 923,012 974,925 92,731 374,318 -399,084 18,289

2,640 1,206,384 721,153 112,045 287,349 -536,174 30,183

725 -225,699 0 -311,109 0 -361,428 0

2,499 405,940 296,482 -278,161 -56,306 -683,084 -265,199

2,750 563,043 546,601 -227,276 14,642 -695,151 -300,425

870 -206,194 47,644 -330,336 -15,499 -403,579 -52,883

725 -268,825 0 -353,060 0 -402,648 0

2499 253,523 192,440 -426,429 -122,533 -828,770 -308,972

2,750 579,629 586,901 -264,702 48,775 -764,534 -269,973

870 -258,252 38,687 -380,978 -20,551 -453,339 -55,617

725 -225,536 0 -310,949 0 -361,271 0

2,499 406,518 288,319 -277,598 -54,450 -682,531 -257,409

2,750 748,146 716,067 -100,771 149,919 -603,459 -185,511

870 -205,996 40,957 -330,144 -17,410 -403,390 -51,964

725 -179,306 0 -265,978 0 -317,083 0

2499 569,908 362,006 -118,655 5,916 -526,358 -204,984

2,750 928,113 821,953 74,297 226,688 -431,441 -126,052

870 -150,190 60,697 -275,857 -3,143 -350,049 -40,950

Discount rate 12%


Discount rate 4%

Cd. Obregón

1E

1F

Hermosillo

Culiacán

Guaymas

Reynosa

Piedras

Negras

Discount rate 8%

Mexicali

San Luis Rio

Colorado


Annex

177


Cost

difference PV

(full) - tariff

Cost

difference PV

(partial) -

tariff

Cost

difference PV

(full) - tariff

Cost

difference PV

(partial) -

tariff

Cost

difference PV

(full) - tariff

Cost

difference PV

(partial) -

tariff

[kWh/month] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$]

140 16,757 0 -3,773 0 -15,929 0

249 109,775 99,415 45,290 53,088 7,060 25,605

250 266,156 253,569 151,876 158,287 84,064 101,721

300 312,039 221,796 176,575 141,578 96,197 93,948

140 12,823 0 -7,600 0 -19,689 0

249 102,112 95,638 37,835 50,013 -265 22,949

250 264,722 258,272 148,663 160,833 79,799 102,988

300 310,147 123,198 172,553 77,111 90,915 49,749

140 15,348 0 -5,144 0 -17,276 0

249 107,030 99,630 42,620 52,406 4,436 24,393

250 263,399 256,004 149,194 158,953 81,429 101,340

300 308,669 150,475 173,297 95,393 92,975 62,690

140 14,366 0 -6,099 0 -18,215 0

249 105,117 96,141 40,758 50,854 2,607 23,989

250 267,741 258,795 151,599 161,687 82,685 104,038

300 313,837 124,298 176,142 78,027 94,442 50,556

140 8,042 0 -12,251 0 -24,259 0

249 92,800 92,533 28,777 46,236 -9,166 18,777

250 282,878 282,583 158,337 175,765 84,442 112,353

300 331,727 156,556 183,960 99,045 96,288 64,901

150 -5,580 0 -24,494 0 -35,676 0

299 104,514 103,024 25,979 45,935 -20,556 12,085

300 288,674 287,108 151,489 171,393 70,112 102,715

360 338,368 144,000 175,472 88,488 78,847 55,535

150 -2,123 0 -21,131 0 -32,371 0

299 112,092 114,332 33,351 54,481 -13,312 18,988

300 288,763 290,964 153,758 174,853 73,670 105,938

360 338,612 155,437 178,329 96,459 83,249 61,446

150 784 0 -18,292 0 -29,575 0

299 118,509 107,415 39,604 51,584 -7,162 18,475

300 295,240 284,044 160,059 171,955 79,862 105,423

360 346,503 155,450 186,005 97,296 90,791 62,772

150 1,121 0 -17,976 0 -29,270 0

299 119,203 109,038 40,268 52,692 -6,516 19,276

300 303,417 293,193 165,830 178,198 84,203 109,941

360 356,327 146,661 192,942 91,299 96,013 58,432

Distrito

Federal

Discount rate 8%

Los Tuxtlas

1A

Cuautla

Tepic

Nogales

Discount rate 12%

1


Durango

Oaxaca

Guadalajara

Puebla

Discount rate 4%


Annex

178

Cost

difference PV

(full) - tariff

Cost

difference PV

(partial) -

tariff

Cost

difference PV

(full) - tariff

Cost

difference PV

(partial) -

tariff

Cost

difference PV

(full) - tariff

Cost

difference PV

(partial) -

tariff

[kWh/month] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$]

200 22,316 0 -7,334 0 -24,888 0

399 194,307 138,660 84,380 73,901 19,204 35,485

400 413,742 358,188 233,999 223,547 127,347 143,616

528 535,700 300,923 300,723 184,468 161,302 115,340

200 12,834 0 -16,550 0 -33,938 0

399 174,180 145,777 64,779 74,448 -69 32,139

400 398,458 370,124 217,688 227,382 110,441 142,650

528 513,731 311,905 277,843 187,486 137,901 113,639

200 5,650 0 -23,538 0 -40,804 0

399 158,827 119,904 49,844 59,113 -14,744 23,058

400 375,616 336,642 197,630 206,854 92,050 129,811

528 482,947 294,969 250,839 178,250 113,160 108,971

200 14,109 0 -15,309 0 -32,719 0

399 176,906 134,829 67,431 69,961 2,537 31,483

400 401,191 359,140 220,347 222,870 113,054 141,975

528 517,397 317,633 281,409 194,379 141,405 121,217

238 -5,707 0 -36,404 0 -54,553 0

849 410,786 307,558 154,273 138,430 2,221 38,146

850 737,851 634,563 377,317 361,421 163,470 199,344

1,067 915,524 429,623 465,369 252,236 198,367 146,963

238 -22,491 0 -52,730 0 -70,595 0

849 345,705 269,567 90,963 102,557 -59,986 3,557

850 693,274 617,035 327,977 339,512 111,350 174,859

1,067 861,412 422,864 404,545 241,986 133,621 134,655

238 -17,808 0 -48,158 0 -66,092 0

849 364,472 271,852 109,109 98,479 -42,223 -4,286

850 711,684 618,998 345,886 335,215 128,948 166,858

1,067 883,147 472,907 426,129 272,821 155,097 154,088

238 -13,403 0 -43,873 0 -61,881 0

849 381,553 298,961 125,726 126,429 -25,896 24,139

850 750,086 667,429 377,058 377,715 155,811 205,810

1,067 931,474 505,297 465,381 300,396 188,940 178,788

300 -11,726 0 -51,068 0 -74,324 0

999 443,853 377,726 150,368 163,270 -23,578 36,118

1,000 910,959 844,837 468,977 481,872 206,813 266,496

1,320 1,191,925 668,820 610,603 386,954 265,794 219,689

300 9,800 0 -30,127 0 -53,748 0

999 520,096 397,750 224,536 196,498 49,299 77,138

1,000 1,008,030 885,272 557,381 529,195 290,009 317,858

1,320 1,340,883 671,844 741,690 403,441 386,185 244,136

300 -3,205 0 -42,779 0 -66,180 0

999 474,032 316,408 179,725 146,127 5,269 45,154

1,000 903,434 745,750 472,613 438,955 217,056 256,882

1,320 1,182,192 576,032 615,611 341,704 279,529 202,633

300 6,105 0 -33,687 0 -57,225 0

999 507,965 401,053 212,580 193,612 37,456 70,590

1,000 961,924 854,612 522,236 503,132 261,385 294,540

1,320 1,257,784 670,937 680,091 399,009 337,372 237,620

Discount rate 8%

1D

Mérida

Mazatlán

La Paz

Matamoros

1C

Cd. Juárez

Monterrey

Tampico

Cd. Altamirano

1B

Chihuahua

Acapulco

Poza Rica

Riviera Maya

Discount rate 12%


Discount rate 4%


Annex

179

Source: Own display

Cost

difference PV

(full) - tariff

Cost

difference PV

(partial) -

tariff

Cost

difference PV

(full) - tariff

Cost

difference PV

(partial) -

tariff

Cost

difference PV

(full) - tariff

Cost

difference PV

(partial) -

tariff

[kWh/month] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$] [$]

500 -43,382 0 -104,947 0 -141,320 0

1,999 1,033,260 810,949 392,018 368,390 11,907 105,970

2,000 1,769,578 1,547,224 894,342 870,678 375,220 469,251

2,640 2,327,069 1,137,641 1,173,275 646,045 488,940 354,346

500 7,728 0 -55,228 0 -92,467 0

1999 1,245,663 1,017,522 598,640 533,567 214,929 246,489

2,000 1,982,088 1,754,051 1,101,068 1,036,027 578,345 609,895

2,640 2,608,444 1,292,320 1,446,991 768,512 757,887 457,632

500 -61,424 0 -122,498 0 -158,565 0

1,999 958,284 687,407 319,082 297,180 -59,758 65,814

2,000 1,619,093 1,348,118 769,866 747,900 266,255 391,784

2,640 2,128,030 1,036,605 1,008,607 586,214 344,768 318,969

500 -61,985 0 -123,043 0 -159,101 0

1999 955,952 690,051 316,814 289,202 -61,987 51,552

2,000 1,616,760 1,350,752 767,597 739,916 264,025 377,517

2,640 2,124,941 985,637 1,005,601 544,634 341,815 282,986

725 -22,821 0 -113,752 0 -167,509 0

2,499 1,122,971 630,513 419,355 268,632 2,279 54,079

2,750 1,352,821 1,009,448 541,006 464,890 59,747 141,979

870 38,710 109,654 -92,098 44,822 -169,492 6,388

725 -49,774 0 -139,971 0 -193,272 0

2499 1,027,711 520,303 326,687 196,407 -88,774 4,411

2,750 1,432,362 1,041,182 564,821 490,691 50,538 164,245

870 6,174 99,326 -123,749 38,438 -200,591 2,344

725 -22,718 0 -113,652 0 -167,411 0

2,499 1,123,333 612,757 419,706 261,157 2,625 52,700

2,750 1,537,685 1,153,562 667,278 575,506 151,210 232,661

870 38,834 99,541 -91,978 39,579 -169,374 4,033

725 6,175 0 -85,545 0 -139,794 0

2499 1,225,451 673,425 519,046 308,859 100,234 92,681

2,750 1,650,165 1,253,623 776,696 646,609 258,721 286,553

870 73,713 118,253 -58,049 52,846 -136,035 14,064

Discount rate 8%

Mexicali

San Luis Rio

Colorado

Cd. Obregón

1E

1F

Hermosillo

Culiacán

Guaymas

Reynosa

Piedras

Negras

Discount rate 12%


Discount rate 4%


Annex

180

Annex 32: Scenario 1 - Cost comparison for different discount rates (industry and services sectors)

Source: Own display

Discount rate 4% 8% 12%


2/d 4,5 kWh/m

2/d 6 kWh/m

2/d 5 kWh/m

2/d 4,5 kWh/m

2/d 6 kWh/m

2/d 5 kWh/m

2/d 4,5 kWh/m

2/d

Average

charged

capacity

demand per

month of PV

user

Average

consumption

per month of

PV user

Cost

difference

PV - tariff

Cost

difference

PV - tariff

Cost

difference

PV - tariff

Cost

difference

PV - tariff

Cost

difference

PV - tariff

Cost

difference

PV - tariff

Cost

difference

PV - tariff

Cost

difference

PV - tariff

Cost

difference

PV - tariff

kW [kWh/month] $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

270 3,247 1,379 446 -32 -1,321 -1,966 -1,989 -2,933 -3,404

135 1,623 828 312 -16 -793 -1,376 -995 -1,760 -2,383

540 6,494 2,759 1,337 -64 -2,642 -5,898 -3,979 -5,865 -10,213

Tariff

2


Annex

181

Annex 33: Scenario 2 - Cost comparison for different discount rates (industry and service sectors)



2/d 4,5 kWh/m

2/d 6 kWh/m

2/d 5 kWh/m

2/d 4,5 kWh/m

2/d 6 kWh/m

2/d 5 kWh/m

2/d 4,5 kWh/m

2/d

Average

charged

capacity

demand per

month of PV

user

Average

consumption

per month of

PV user

Cost difference

PV - tariff

Cost difference

PV - tariff

Cost difference

PV - tariff

Cost difference

PV - tariff

Cost difference

PV - tariff

Cost difference

PV - tariff

Cost difference

PV - tariff

Cost difference

PV - tariff

Cost difference

PV - tariff

kW [kWh/month] $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

270 9,349 6,730 5,420 4,636 2,827 1,923 1,819 496 -166

135 4,675 4,038 3,794 2,318 1,696 1,346 909 297 -116

540 18,699 13,460 16,261 9,272 5,655 5,770 3,638 992 -497

63 4,600 73,664 53,548 38,139 19,937 -1,226 -15,502 -12,153 -33,928 -47,518

26 2,300 38,999 25,499 19,899 10,555 -584 -8,088 -6,434 -16,156 -24,792

100 9,200 151,662 104,546 76,279 41,047 -2,394 -31,003 -25,020 -66,240 -95,035

100 2,300 38,999 25,499 19,899 10,555 -584 -8,088 -6,434 -16,156 -24,792

26 9,200 151,662 104,546 76,279 41,047 -2,394 -31,003 -25,020 -66,240 -95,035

50 5,300 6,436 -19,031 -36,459 -31,933 -56,790 -74,278 -54,821 -79,298 -96,812

10 2,650 3,218 -9,515 -17,554 -15,966 -28,395 -35,764 -27,410 -39,649 -46,613

99 10,600 12,872 -38,061 -71,567 -63,866 -113,580 -145,805 -109,641 -158,596 -190,037

99 2,650 3,218 -9,515 -17,554 -15,966 -28,395 -35,764 -27,410 -39,649 -46,613

10 10,600 12,872 -38,061 -71,567 -63,866 -113,580 -145,805 -109,641 -158,596 -190,037

50 5,300 23,814 -1,653 -18,864 -19,935 -44,792 -62,131 -46,043 -70,521 -87,924

10 2,650 11,907 -826 -9,082 -9,968 -22,396 -29,915 -23,022 -35,260 -42,334

99 10,600 47,627 -3,306 -37,029 -39,871 -89,585 -121,961 -92,086 -141,041 -172,592

99 2,650 11,907 -826 -9,082 -9,968 -22,396 -29,915 -23,022 -35,260 -42,334

10 10,600 47,627 -3,306 -37,029 -39,871 -89,585 -121,961 -92,086 -141,041 -172,592

50 5,300 13,407 -12,059 -29,400 -27,120 -51,977 -69,405 -51,299 -75,777 -93,246

10 2,650 6,704 -6,030 -14,156 -13,560 -25,988 -33,417 -25,650 -37,888 -44,896

99 10,600 26,814 -24,119 -57,711 -54,240 -103,954 -136,240 -102,599 -151,554 -183,039

99 2,650 6,704 -6,030 -14,156 -13,560 -25,988 -33,417 -25,650 -37,888 -44,896

10 10,600 26,814 -24,119 -57,711 -54,240 -103,954 -136,240 -102,599 -151,554 -183,039

200 77,000 -296,527 -664,902 -909,060 -730,353 -1,090,165 -1,327,843 -988,907 -1,343,380 -1,577,040

110 38,500 -147,750 -331,493 -455,711 -363,913 -543,512 -665,646 -492,742 -669,754 -790,568

300 144,000 -400,886 -1,059,481 -1,497,901 -1,215,161 -1,859,263 -2,287,062 -1,700,556 -2,335,600 -2,756,789

300 38,500 -147,750 -331,493 -455,711 -363,913 -543,512 -665,646 -492,742 -669,754 -790,568

110 144,000 -400,886 -1,059,481 -1,497,901 -1,215,161 -1,859,263 -2,287,062 -1,700,556 -2,335,600 -2,756,789

200 77,000 -197,882 -566,201 -810,501 -662,250 -1,022,022 -1,259,799 -939,081 -1,293,526 -1,527,258

110 38,500 -98,599 -282,285 -406,303 -329,979 -509,539 -631,535 -467,916 -644,899 -765,612

300 144,000 -216,567 -874,878 -1,313,326 -1,087,910 -1,731,816 -2,159,634 -1,607,456 -2,242,357 -2,663,560

300 38,500 -98,599 -282,285 -406,303 -329,979 -509,539 -631,535 -467,916 -644,899 -765,612

110 144,000 -216,567 -874,878 -1,313,326 -1,087,910 -1,731,816 -2,159,634 -1,607,456 -2,242,357 -2,663,560

200 77,000 -316,432 -684,819 -928,948 -744,095 -1,103,915 -1,341,573 -998,961 -1,353,440 -1,587,086

110 38,500 -157,669 -341,423 -465,681 -370,760 -550,367 -672,529 -497,752 -674,770 -795,604

300 144,000 -438,079 -1,096,732 -1,535,146 -1,240,839 -1,884,981 -2,312,775 -1,719,342 -2,354,416 -2,775,601

300 38,500 -157,669 -341,423 -465,681 -370,760 -550,367 -672,529 -497,752 -674,770 -795,604

110 144,000 -438,079 -1,096,732 -1,535,146 -1,240,839 -1,884,981 -2,312,775 -1,719,342 -2,354,416 -2,775,601

Central

Northeast

Tariff

2

3

O-M

Baja

Calfornia

Central

Northeast

H-M

Baja

Calfornia


Annex

182



2/d 4,5 kWh/m

2/d 6 kWh/m

2/d 5 kWh/m

2/d 4,5 kWh/m

2/d 6 kWh/m

2/d 5 kWh/m

2/d 4,5 kWh/m

2/d

Average

charged

capacity

demand per

month of PV

user

Average

consumption

per month of

PV user

Cost difference

PV - tariff

Cost difference

PV - tariff

Cost difference

PV - tariff

Cost difference

PV - tariff

Cost difference

PV - tariff

Cost difference

PV - tariff

Cost difference

PV - tariff

Cost difference

PV - tariff

Cost difference

PV - tariff

kW [kWh/month] $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

200 60,000 157,924 -128,576 -319,575 -300,203 -579,844 -766,272 -573,535 -848,907 -1,032,487

110 30,000 79,313 -64,288 -159,788 -150,768 -289,922 -383,136 -288,042 -424,453 -516,244

300 120,000 315,847 -103,973 -468,952 -600,405 -1,010,177 -1,366,420 -1,147,070 -1,550,585 -1,901,388

300 30,000 79,313 -64,288 -159,788 -150,768 -289,922 -383,136 -288,042 -424,453 -516,244

110 120,000 315,847 -103,973 -468,952 -600,405 -1,010,177 -1,366,420 -1,147,070 -1,550,585 -1,901,388

300 1,710,000 7,685,130 386,731 -4,478,643 -5,119,165 -12,241,881 -16,991,287 -12,760,661 -19,774,017 -24,451,203

150 855,000 3,842,565 193,391 -2,239,060 -2,559,582 -6,121,736 -8,494,651 -6,380,331 -9,888,292 -12,224,173

600 3,420,000 15,369,062 773,513 -8,957,287 -10,237,532 -24,485,352 -33,982,574 -25,519,334 -39,550,602 -48,902,406

600 855,000 3,842,565 193,391 -2,239,060 -2,559,582 -6,121,736 -8,494,651 -6,380,331 -9,888,292 -12,224,173

150 3,420,000 15,369,062 773,513 -8,957,287 -10,237,532 -24,485,352 -33,982,574 -25,519,334 -39,550,602 -48,902,406

300 1,710,000 -2,155,019 -9,452,651 -14,318,409 -11,912,671 -19,034,858 -23,784,528 -17,730,928 -24,743,896 -29,421,276

150 855,000 -1,077,510 -4,726,939 -7,158,368 -5,956,336 -9,518,665 -11,890,874 -8,865,464 -12,373,555 -14,708,919

600 3,420,000 -4,309,702 -18,906,530 -28,636,818 -23,823,486 -38,072,189 -47,569,057 -35,459,092 -49,491,005 -58,842,551

600 855,000 -1,077,510 -4,726,939 -7,158,368 -5,956,336 -9,518,665 -11,890,874 -8,865,464 -12,373,555 -14,708,919

150 3,420,000 -4,309,702 -18,906,530 -28,636,818 -23,823,486 -38,072,189 -47,569,057 -35,459,092 -49,491,005 -58,842,551

300 1,710,000 -4,058,212 -11,355,696 -16,221,528 -13,226,610 -20,348,695 -25,098,416 -18,692,232 -25,705,126 -30,382,542

150 855,000 -2,029,106 -5,678,585 -8,109,816 -6,613,305 -10,175,669 -12,547,742 -9,346,116 -12,854,232 -15,189,496

600 3,420,000 -8,115,792 -22,712,867 -32,443,056 -26,451,159 -40,700,032 -50,196,833 -37,381,551 -51,413,589 -60,765,085

600 855,000 -2,029,106 -5,678,585 -8,109,816 -6,613,305 -10,175,669 -12,547,742 -9,346,116 -12,854,232 -15,189,496

150 3,420,000 -8,115,792 -22,712,867 -32,443,056 -26,451,159 -40,700,032 -50,196,833 -37,381,551 -51,413,589 -60,765,085

300 3,980,000 9,735,299 -7,250,878 -18,574,592 -17,541,323 -34,121,815 -45,173,572 -33,815,618 -50,143,490 -61,025,941

150 1,990,000 4,867,976 -3,625,237 -9,287,296 -8,771,249 -17,059,956 -22,586,786 -16,908,941 -25,070,346 -30,512,970

600 7,960,000 19,470,599 -14,501,352 -37,149,185 -35,082,646 -68,241,726 -90,347,144 -67,631,237 -100,284,183 -122,051,881

600 1,990,000 4,867,976 -3,625,237 -9,287,296 -8,771,249 -17,059,956 -22,586,786 -16,908,941 -25,070,346 -30,512,970

150 7,960,000 19,470,599 -14,501,352 -37,149,185 -35,082,646 -68,241,726 -90,347,144 -67,631,237 -100,284,183 -122,051,881

300 3,980,000 -6,817,059 -23,803,791 -35,126,951 -28,968,849 -45,549,723 -56,601,098 -42,176,227 -58,504,379 -69,386,549

150 1,990,000 -3,408,758 -11,901,232 -17,563,476 -14,485,394 -22,773,591 -28,300,549 -21,089,525 -29,250,557 -34,693,275

600 7,960,000 -13,634,119 -47,606,255 -70,253,903 -57,937,698 -91,096,904 -113,202,195 -84,352,454 -117,005,494 -138,773,099

600 1,990,000 -3,408,758 -11,901,232 -17,563,476 -14,485,394 -22,773,591 -28,300,549 -21,089,525 -29,250,557 -34,693,275

150 7,960,000 -13,634,119 -47,606,255 -70,253,903 -57,937,698 -91,096,904 -113,202,195 -84,352,454 -117,005,494 -138,773,099

300 3,980,000 -11,307,393 -28,294,275 -39,617,284 -32,068,914 -48,649,892 -59,701,163 -44,444,298 -60,772,525 -71,654,620

150 1,990,000 -5,654,075 -14,146,348 -19,808,642 -16,035,531 -24,323,589 -29,850,582 -22,223,637 -30,384,567 -35,827,310

600 7,960,000 -22,614,785 -56,586,971 -79,234,569 -64,137,829 -97,297,070 -119,402,326 -88,888,595 -121,541,660 -143,309,240

600 1,990,000 -5,654,075 -14,146,348 -19,808,642 -16,035,531 -24,323,589 -29,850,582 -22,223,637 -30,384,567 -35,827,310

150 7,960,000 -22,614,785 -56,586,971 -79,234,569 -64,137,829 -97,297,070 -119,402,326 -88,888,595 -121,541,660 -143,309,240

Baja

Calfornia

Central

Tariff

H-SL

Baja

Calfornia

Northeast

NortheastH-MC

H-S

Central

Northeast


Annex

183

Source: Own display



2/d 4,5 kWh/m

2/d 6 kWh/m

2/d 5 kWh/m

2/d 4,5 kWh/m

2/d 6 kWh/m

2/d 5 kWh/m

2/d 4,5 kWh/m

2/d

Average

charged

capacity

demand per

month of PV

user

Average

consumption

per month of

PV user

Cost difference

PV - tariff

Cost difference

PV - tariff

Cost difference

PV - tariff

Cost difference

PV - tariff

Cost difference

PV - tariff

Cost difference

PV - tariff

Cost difference

PV - tariff

Cost difference

PV - tariff

Cost difference

PV - tariff

kW [kWh/month] $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

500 8,100,000 26,124,700 -8,445,322 -31,491,745 -31,343,136 -65,085,669 -87,579,971 -65,634,208 -98,861,515 -121,012,058

250 4,050,000 13,062,350 -4,222,661 -15,745,484 -15,671,568 -32,542,835 -43,788,905 -32,817,104 -49,430,758 -60,504,536

1,000 16,200,000 52,248,541 -16,890,413 -62,983,490 -62,685,241 -130,169,554 -175,159,942 -131,266,258 -197,720,320 -242,024,115

1,000 4,050,000 13,062,350 -4,222,661 -15,745,484 -15,671,568 -32,542,835 -43,788,905 -32,817,104 -49,430,758 -60,504,536

250 16,200,000 52,248,541 -16,890,413 -62,983,490 -62,685,241 -130,169,554 -175,159,942 -131,266,258 -197,720,320 -242,024,115

500 8,100,000 -25,538,248 -60,108,270 -83,154,268 -67,010,539 -100,753,072 -123,247,081 -91,729,202 -124,956,508 -147,106,836

250 4,050,000 -12,769,124 -30,054,135 -41,576,108 -33,505,270 -50,376,536 -61,622,020 -45,864,601 -62,478,254 -73,551,603

1,000 16,200,000 -51,075,655 -120,214,893 -166,308,536 -134,018,874 -201,503,383 -246,494,162 -183,455,386 -249,909,591 -294,213,672

1,000 4,050,000 -12,769,124 -30,054,135 -41,576,108 -33,505,270 -50,376,536 -61,622,020 -45,864,601 -62,478,254 -73,551,603

250 16,200,000 -51,075,655 -120,214,893 -166,308,536 -134,018,874 -201,503,383 -246,494,162 -183,455,386 -249,909,591 -294,213,672

500 8,100,000 -41,126,110 -75,696,133 -98,742,002 -77,772,189 -111,514,723 -134,008,643 -99,602,642 -132,829,949 -154,980,212

250 4,050,000 -20,563,055 -37,848,066 -49,369,783 -38,886,095 -55,757,361 -67,002,668 -49,801,321 -66,414,974 -77,488,194

1,000 16,200,000 -82,250,868 -151,390,191 -197,484,005 -155,541,821 -223,026,388 -268,017,286 -199,202,008 -265,656,257 -309,960,424

1,000 4,050,000 -20,563,055 -37,848,066 -49,369,783 -38,886,095 -55,757,361 -67,002,668 -49,801,321 -66,414,974 -77,488,194

250 16,200,000 -82,250,868 -151,390,191 -197,484,005 -155,541,821 -223,026,388 -268,017,286 -199,202,008 -265,656,257 -309,960,424

500 39,000,000 39,231,497 -127,215,346 -238,180,074 -210,664,951 -373,127,904 -481,436,654 -359,731,544 -519,713,966 -626,368,997

250 19,500,000 19,615,615 -63,607,311 -119,089,427 -105,331,756 -186,562,890 -240,717,093 -179,864,543 -259,855,503 -313,182,894

1,000 78,000,000 78,462,995 -254,429,968 -476,358,927 -421,329,903 -746,253,684 -962,870,840 -719,463,088 -1,039,424,973 -1,252,734,785

1,000 19,500,000 19,615,615 -63,607,311 -119,089,427 -105,331,756 -186,562,890 -240,717,093 -179,864,543 -259,855,503 -313,182,894

250 78,000,000 78,462,995 -254,429,968 -476,358,927 -421,329,903 -746,253,684 -962,870,840 -719,463,088 -1,039,424,973 -1,252,734,785

500 39,000,000 -130,923,363 -297,370,400 -408,335,225 -328,137,575 -490,600,661 -598,909,477 -445,676,889 -605,659,409 -712,314,489

250 19,500,000 -65,461,234 -148,684,354 -204,166,566 -164,067,666 -245,298,934 -299,453,204 -222,836,922 -302,827,980 -356,155,420

1,000 78,000,000 -261,846,726 -594,739,107 -816,668,357 -656,275,149 -981,198,529 -1,197,815,886 -891,353,778 -1,211,315,369 -1,424,625,328

1,000 19,500,000 -65,461,234 -148,684,354 -204,166,566 -164,067,666 -245,298,934 -299,453,204 -222,836,922 -302,827,980 -356,155,420

250 78,000,000 -261,846,726 -594,739,107 -816,668,357 -656,275,149 -981,198,529 -1,197,815,886 -891,353,778 -1,211,315,369 -1,424,625,328

500 39,000,000 -206,033,000 -372,480,123 -483,444,990 -379,992,256 -542,455,402 -650,764,248 -483,614,822 -643,597,385 -750,252,487

250 19,500,000 -103,015,796 -186,239,001 -241,721,256 -189,994,830 -271,226,157 -325,380,457 -241,805,759 -321,796,860 -375,124,321

1,000 78,000,000 -412,066,001 -744,958,125 -966,887,503 -759,984,513 -1,084,907,715 -1,301,525,161 -967,229,644 -1,287,191,105 -1,500,501,129

1,000 19,500,000 -103,015,796 -186,239,001 -241,721,256 -189,994,830 -271,226,157 -325,380,457 -241,805,759 -321,796,860 -375,124,321

250 78,000,000 -412,066,001 -744,958,125 -966,887,503 -759,984,513 -1,084,907,715 -1,301,525,161 -967,229,644 -1,287,191,105 -1,500,501,129

H-T

Baja

Calfornia

Central

Peninsula

H-TL

Baja

Calfornia

Central

Peninsula

Tariff


Annex

184

Annex 34: Scenario 3 - Cost comparison for different discount rates (industry and services sectors)



2/d 4,5 kWh/m

2/d 6 kWh/m

2/d 5 kWh/m

2/d 4,5 kWh/m

2/d 6 kWh/m

2/d 5 kWh/m

2/d 4,5 kWh/m

2/d

Average

charged

capacity

demand per

month of PV

user

Average

consumption

per month of

PV user

Cost difference

PV - tariff

Cost difference

PV - tariff

Cost difference

PV - tariff

Cost difference

PV - tariff

Cost difference

PV - tariff

Cost difference

PV - tariff

Cost difference

PV - tariff

Cost difference

PV - tariff

Cost difference

PV - tariff

kW [kWh/month] $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

270 12,167 9,476 8,131 7,263 5,406 4,477 4,331 2,972 2,292

135 6,084 5,686 5,692 3,632 3,243 3,134 2,166 1,783 1,604

540 24,335 18,953 24,392 14,527 10,811 13,430 8,662 5,944 6,876

63 4,600 119,235 103,634 93,843 62,994 48,812 39,779 29,375 16,051 7,476

26 2,300 56,111 51,817 46,922 29,644 24,406 19,890 13,824 8,025 3,738

100 9,200 238,471 207,267 191,952 125,987 97,624 81,367 58,751 32,102 15,292

100 2,300 56,111 51,817 46,922 29,644 24,406 19,890 13,824 8,025 3,738

26 9,200 238,471 207,267 191,952 125,987 97,624 81,367 58,751 32,102 15,292

50 5,300 54,958 40,187 30,540 16,344 1,599 -8,471 -6,720 -21,440 -31,757

10 2,650 28,925 20,967 15,270 8,602 834 -4,236 -3,537 -11,186 -15,879

99 10,600 112,809 80,374 61,080 33,548 3,198 -16,943 -13,795 -42,881 -63,514

99 2,650 28,925 20,967 15,270 8,602 834 -4,236 -3,537 -11,186 -15,879

10 10,600 112,809 80,374 61,080 33,548 3,198 -16,943 -13,795 -42,881 -63,514

50 5,300 71,919 57,297 47,947 28,054 13,412 3,547 1,847 -12,798 -22,965

10 2,650 37,852 29,894 23,974 14,765 6,997 1,773 972 -6,677 -11,482

99 10,600 147,624 114,593 95,895 57,584 26,823 7,093 3,790 -25,596 -45,929

99 2,650 37,852 29,894 23,974 14,765 6,997 1,773 972 -6,677 -11,482

10 10,600 147,624 114,593 95,895 57,584 26,823 7,093 3,790 -25,596 -45,929

50 5,300 61,762 47,051 37,523 21,042 6,338 -3,650 -3,284 -17,973 -28,230

10 2,650 32,506 24,548 18,762 11,075 3,307 -1,825 -1,728 -9,377 -14,115

99 10,600 126,775 94,101 75,046 43,191 12,676 -7,300 -6,740 -35,947 -56,460

99 2,650 32,506 24,548 18,762 11,075 3,307 -1,825 -1,728 -9,377 -14,115

10 10,600 126,775 94,101 75,046 43,191 12,676 -7,300 -6,740 -35,947 -56,460

200 77,000 423,682 200,529 51,014 -26,923 -245,780 -391,063 -295,937 -512,091 -654,756

110 38,500 212,595 100,264 25,575 -13,509 -122,890 -196,053 -148,495 -256,046 -328,251

300 144,000 886,339 486,229 219,641 40,625 -349,647 -609,723 -464,327 -848,480 -1,104,505

300 38,500 212,595 100,264 25,575 -13,509 -122,890 -196,053 -148,495 -256,046 -328,251

110 144,000 886,339 486,229 219,641 40,625 -349,647 -609,723 -464,327 -848,480 -1,104,505

200 77,000 522,224 299,304 149,643 41,109 -177,587 -322,971 -246,163 -462,200 -604,938

110 38,500 262,041 149,652 75,021 20,628 -88,793 -161,916 -123,519 -231,100 -303,276

300 144,000 1,070,799 670,630 404,013 167,974 -222,339 -482,435 -371,157 -755,339 -1,011,379

300 38,500 262,041 149,652 75,021 20,628 -88,793 -161,916 -123,519 -231,100 -303,276

110 144,000 1,070,799 670,630 404,013 167,974 -222,339 -482,435 -371,157 -755,339 -1,011,379

200 77,000 403,798 180,597 31,111 -40,651 -259,541 -404,803 -305,980 -522,159 -664,809

110 38,500 202,618 90,298 15,597 -20,398 -129,770 -202,941 -153,535 -261,079 -333,291

300 144,000 849,118 449,019 182,437 14,928 -375,336 -635,408 -483,128 -867,275 -1,123,297

300 38,500 202,618 90,298 15,597 -20,398 -129,770 -202,941 -153,535 -261,079 -333,291

110 144,000 849,118 449,019 182,437 14,928 -375,336 -635,408 -483,128 -867,275 -1,123,297

H-M

Baja

Calfornia

Tariff

2

3

O-M

Baja

Calfornia

Central

Northeast

Central

Northeast


Annex

185



2/d 4,5 kWh/m

2/d 6 kWh/m

2/d 5 kWh/m

2/d 4,5 kWh/m

2/d 6 kWh/m

2/d 5 kWh/m

2/d 4,5 kWh/m

2/d

Average

charged

capacity

demand per

month of PV

user

Average

consumption

per month of

PV user

Cost difference

PV - tariff

Cost difference

PV - tariff

Cost difference

PV - tariff

Cost difference

PV - tariff

Cost difference

PV - tariff

Cost difference

PV - tariff

Cost difference

PV - tariff

Cost difference

PV - tariff

Cost difference

PV - tariff

kW [kWh/month] $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

200 60,000 718,985 545,112 428,506 247,428 77,372 -36,097 -34,266 -201,937 -313,462

110 30,000 361,134 273,592 214,253 124,279 38,833 -18,048 -17,211 -101,352 -156,731

300 120,000 1,437,969 1,183,478 960,549 494,857 245,766 28,865 -68,532 -314,242 -527,409

300 30,000 361,134 273,592 214,253 124,279 38,833 -18,048 -17,211 -101,352 -156,731

110 120,000 1,437,969 1,183,478 960,549 494,857 245,766 28,865 -68,532 -314,242 -527,409

300 1,710,000 21,978,284 17,537,403 14,577,792 8,831,564 4,497,656 1,608,719 976,867 -3,290,452 -6,135,380

150 855,000 10,987,383 8,768,702 7,288,021 4,415,075 2,248,828 804,263 488,356 -1,645,226 -3,067,321

600 3,420,000 43,953,051 35,074,807 29,155,585 17,661,713 8,995,311 3,217,439 1,953,579 -6,580,905 -12,270,759

600 855,000 10,987,383 8,768,702 7,288,021 4,415,075 2,248,828 804,263 488,356 -1,645,226 -3,067,321

150 3,420,000 43,953,051 35,074,807 29,155,585 17,661,713 8,995,311 3,217,439 1,953,579 -6,580,905 -12,270,759

300 1,710,000 12,137,904 7,697,549 4,737,806 2,037,898 -2,295,648 -5,184,674 -3,993,516 -8,260,570 -11,105,564

150 855,000 6,067,981 3,848,774 2,368,619 1,018,786 -1,147,824 -2,592,026 -1,996,438 -4,130,285 -5,552,115

600 3,420,000 24,273,866 15,395,097 9,475,613 4,075,469 -4,591,295 -10,369,349 -7,986,392 -16,521,141 -22,211,128

600 855,000 6,067,981 3,848,774 2,368,619 1,018,786 -1,147,824 -2,592,026 -1,996,438 -4,130,285 -5,552,115

150 3,420,000 24,273,866 15,395,097 9,475,613 4,075,469 -4,591,295 -10,369,349 -7,986,392 -16,521,141 -22,211,128

300 1,710,000 10,234,666 5,794,412 2,834,644 723,928 -3,609,547 -6,498,592 -4,954,843 -9,221,846 -12,066,852

150 855,000 5,116,514 2,897,206 1,417,152 361,906 -1,804,774 -3,248,906 -2,477,025 -4,610,923 -6,032,702

600 3,420,000 20,467,695 11,588,824 5,669,289 1,447,740 -7,219,095 -12,997,183 -9,908,892 -18,443,692 -24,133,704

600 855,000 5,116,514 2,897,206 1,417,152 361,906 -1,804,774 -3,248,906 -2,477,025 -4,610,923 -6,032,702

150 3,420,000 20,467,695 11,588,824 5,669,289 1,447,740 -7,219,095 -12,997,183 -9,908,892 -18,443,692 -24,133,704

300 3,980,000 43,000,369 32,667,405 25,777,696 14,926,898 4,840,960 -1,883,058 -1,843,530 -11,775,652 -18,396,524

150 1,990,000 21,498,706 16,332,766 12,889,513 7,462,936 2,420,341 -941,578 -921,702 -5,887,488 -9,198,737

600 7,960,000 86,000,738 65,332,938 51,555,391 29,853,795 9,681,643 -3,766,116 -3,687,061 -23,550,628 -36,793,049

600 1,990,000 21,498,706 16,332,766 12,889,513 7,462,936 2,420,341 -941,578 -921,702 -5,887,488 -9,198,737

150 7,960,000 86,000,738 65,332,938 51,555,391 29,853,795 9,681,643 -3,766,116 -3,687,061 -23,550,628 -36,793,049

300 3,980,000 26,447,646 16,114,492 9,225,257 3,499,121 -6,586,948 -13,310,639 -10,204,323 -20,136,540 -26,757,173

150 1,990,000 13,222,913 8,056,784 4,612,866 1,749,440 -3,293,285 -6,655,663 -5,101,811 -10,067,693 -13,379,277

600 7,960,000 52,895,291 32,228,061 18,450,514 6,998,241 -13,173,518 -26,621,277 -20,408,646 -40,271,926 -53,514,347

600 1,990,000 13,222,913 8,056,784 4,612,866 1,749,440 -3,293,285 -6,655,663 -5,101,811 -10,067,693 -13,379,277

150 7,960,000 52,895,291 32,228,061 18,450,514 6,998,241 -13,173,518 -26,621,277 -20,408,646 -40,271,926 -53,514,347

300 3,980,000 21,957,214 11,624,009 4,734,902 398,987 -9,687,117 -16,410,719 -12,472,443 -22,404,687 -29,025,255

150 1,990,000 10,977,852 5,811,671 2,367,573 199,480 -4,843,281 -8,205,783 -6,235,793 -11,201,701 -14,513,376

600 7,960,000 43,914,427 23,247,351 9,469,804 797,974 -19,373,679 -32,821,438 -24,944,887 -44,808,089 -58,050,510

600 1,990,000 10,977,852 5,811,671 2,367,573 199,480 -4,843,281 -8,205,783 -6,235,793 -11,201,701 -14,513,376

150 7,960,000 43,914,427 23,247,351 9,469,804 797,974 -19,373,679 -32,821,438 -24,944,887 -44,808,089 -58,050,510

H-SL

Baja

Calfornia

Northeast

NortheastH-MC

H-S

Central

Northeast

Tariff

Baja

Calfornia

Central


Annex

186

Source: Own display



2/d 4,5 kWh/m

2/d 6 kWh/m

2/d 5 kWh/m

2/d 4,5 kWh/m

2/d 6 kWh/m

2/d 5 kWh/m

2/d 4,5 kWh/m

2/d

Average

charged

capacity

demand per

month of PV

user

Average

consumption

per month of

PV user

Cost difference

PV - tariff

Cost difference

PV - tariff

Cost difference

PV - tariff

Cost difference

PV - tariff

Cost difference

PV - tariff

Cost difference

PV - tariff

Cost difference

PV - tariff

Cost difference

PV - tariff

Cost difference

PV - tariff

kW [kWh/month] $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

500 8,100,000 93,823,271 72,793,821 58,773,504 34,735,601 14,209,204 524,806 -564,060 -20,777,228 -34,252,478

250 4,050,000 46,913,221 36,395,885 29,386,752 17,368,387 7,104,402 262,403 -282,040 -10,388,321 -17,126,239

1,000 16,200,000 187,646,542 145,587,642 117,547,008 69,471,201 28,418,408 1,049,613 -1,128,120 -41,554,455 -68,504,955

1,000 4,050,000 46,913,221 36,395,885 29,386,752 17,368,387 7,104,402 262,403 -282,040 -10,388,321 -17,126,239

250 16,200,000 187,646,542 145,587,642 117,547,008 69,471,201 28,418,408 1,049,613 -1,128,120 -41,554,455 -68,504,955

500 8,100,000 42,160,905 21,131,164 7,111,138 -931,401 -21,457,998 -35,142,195 -26,658,759 -46,872,074 -60,347,177

250 4,050,000 21,081,165 10,565,284 3,555,569 -465,716 -10,728,697 -17,571,098 -13,329,830 -23,435,377 -30,173,588

1,000 16,200,000 84,321,810 42,262,327 14,222,276 -1,862,802 -42,915,997 -70,284,390 -53,317,518 -93,744,147 -120,694,353

1,000 4,050,000 21,081,165 10,565,284 3,555,569 -465,716 -10,728,697 -17,571,098 -13,329,830 -23,435,377 -30,173,588

250 16,200,000 84,321,810 42,262,327 14,222,276 -1,862,802 -42,915,997 -70,284,390 -53,317,518 -93,744,147 -120,694,353

500 8,100,000 26,573,218 5,543,389 -8,476,549 -11,692,930 -32,219,588 -45,903,724 -34,532,111 -54,745,470 -68,220,529

250 4,050,000 13,287,058 2,771,616 -4,238,274 -5,846,663 -16,109,340 -22,951,862 -17,266,639 -27,371,964 -34,110,264

1,000 16,200,000 53,146,436 11,086,778 -16,953,098 -23,385,860 -64,439,176 -91,807,448 -69,064,223 -109,490,940 -136,441,057

1,000 4,050,000 13,287,058 2,771,616 -4,238,274 -5,846,663 -16,109,340 -22,951,862 -17,266,639 -27,371,964 -34,110,264

250 16,200,000 53,146,436 11,086,778 -16,953,098 -23,385,860 -64,439,176 -91,807,448 -69,064,223 -109,490,940 -136,441,057

500 39,000,000 365,190,059 263,934,553 196,430,707 107,490,963 8,659,462 -57,227,988 -46,433,850 -143,756,080 -208,637,115

250 19,500,000 182,595,030 131,966,504 98,215,353 53,745,482 4,329,706 -28,613,994 -23,216,925 -71,877,620 -104,318,557

1,000 78,000,000 730,380,119 527,869,105 392,862,447 214,981,927 17,318,924 -114,456,278 -92,867,700 -287,512,160 -417,275,328

1,000 19,500,000 182,595,030 131,966,504 98,215,353 53,745,482 4,329,706 -28,613,994 -23,216,925 -71,877,620 -104,318,557

250 78,000,000 730,380,119 527,869,105 392,862,447 214,981,927 17,318,924 -114,456,278 -92,867,700 -287,512,160 -417,275,328

500 39,000,000 195,034,992 93,779,684 26,276,236 -9,981,803 -108,813,167 -174,700,342 -132,379,299 -229,701,429 -294,582,263

250 19,500,000 97,517,496 46,889,568 13,138,118 -4,990,901 -54,406,265 -87,350,171 -66,189,650 -114,850,043 -147,291,131

1,000 78,000,000 390,069,984 187,559,368 52,552,611 -19,963,606 -217,626,334 -349,401,604 -264,758,599 -459,402,858 -589,166,077

1,000 19,500,000 97,517,496 46,889,568 13,138,118 -4,990,901 -54,406,265 -87,350,171 -66,189,650 -114,850,043 -147,291,131

250 78,000,000 390,069,984 187,559,368 52,552,611 -19,963,606 -217,626,334 -349,401,604 -264,758,599 -459,402,858 -589,166,077

500 39,000,000 119,925,263 18,670,043 -48,833,229 -61,836,548 -160,667,851 -226,554,905 -170,317,279 -267,639,364 -332,520,109

250 19,500,000 59,962,632 9,334,967 -24,416,614 -30,918,274 -80,333,456 -113,277,452 -85,158,639 -133,818,899 -166,260,054

1,000 78,000,000 239,850,527 37,340,087 -97,666,714 -123,673,095 -321,335,702 -453,111,002 -340,634,557 -535,278,728 -665,041,968

1,000 19,500,000 59,962,632 9,334,967 -24,416,614 -30,918,274 -80,333,456 -113,277,452 -85,158,639 -133,818,899 -166,260,054

250 78,000,000 239,850,527 37,340,087 -97,666,714 -123,673,095 -321,335,702 -453,111,002 -340,634,557 -535,278,728 -665,041,968

Tariff

H-TL

Baja

Calfornia

Central

Peninsula

H-T

Baja

Calfornia

Central

Peninsula


Bibliography

187

Bibliography

Artículo 40 XII, Ley de Impuestos sobre la renta., Available at: http://www.sat.gob.mx/nuevo.html

http://www.bine.info/pdf/publikation/bi0303internetx.pdf, Accessed September 28, 2007

http://www.cfe.gob.mx/es/InformacionAlCliente/conocetutarifa/ , Accessed August 3, 2007

http://www.conae.gob.mx/wb/CONAE/CONA_1433_irradiacion_en_la_re , Accessed August 20, 2007

http://www.enalmex.com/paginas/como.htm , Accessed May 7, 2008

http://www.iea-pvps-task2.org/database/index.htm , Accessed October 6, 2007

IIE Boletín – Resultados tecnologicos del sector electrico aplicables al petrolero.1998.

http://genc.iie.org.mx/genc/fotovoltaico/ , Accessed September 24, 2007

http://www.kyocera.de/ , Accessed September 24, 2007

http://www.level.org.nz/energy/renewable-electricity-generation/photovoltaic-systems/ , Accessed September 19, 2007

http://www.pge.com/suppliers_purchasing/new_generator/solar_wind_generators/expanded_e_net/netenergy_metering/index.htm , Accessed: October 20, 2007

Photovoltaic Power Systems Programme – Annual Report 2006. International Energy Agency (IEA) – Photovoltaic Power Systems Programme. Page 78.

Prospectiva del Sector Eléctrico 2006 – 2015. Secretaría de Energía. 2006.

Resolucion No. RES/176/2007. Secretaría de Energía.

Seminario Nacional Sobre el Uso Racional de la Energia – Memoria Técnica, 1998.

http://www.sener.gob.mx/webSener/res/PE_y_DT/ee/ , Accessed October 13, 2007

http://www.solarserver.de/lexikon/performance_ratio-e.html , Accessed September 28, 2007

Trends in Photovoltaic Applications – Survey report of selected IEA countries between 1992 and 2006. International Energy Agency (IEA) – Photovoltaic Power Systems Programme. August 2007. Page 1.

http://www.uni-solar.com/ , Accessed September 24, 2007

Prof. Dr. Voß, A. – Energiesysteme I - Grundlagen der Energiewirtschaft und Energieversorgung, Volume 1. Institute for Energy Economics and Rational Use of Energy (IER).

Prof. Dr. Voß, A. – Energiesysteme II – Rationelle Energieanwendung und Energieanlagen. Institute for Energy Economics and Rational Use of Energy (IER). Page 23-26.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guadalajara%2C_Jalisco , Accessed September 6, 2007

http://www.bine.info/pdf/publikation/bi0303internetx.pdf


http://www.conae.gob.mx/wb/CONAE/CONA_1433_irradiacion_en_la_re

http://www.enalmex.com/paginas/como.htm

http://www.iea-pvps-task2.org/database/index.htm

http://genc.iie.org.mx/genc/fotovoltaico/

http://www.level.org.nz/energy/renewable-electricity-generation/photovoltaic-systems/

http://www.pge.com/suppliers_purchasing/new_generator/solar_wind_generators/expanded_e_net/netenergy_metering/index.htm

http://www.pge.com/suppliers_purchasing/new_generator/solar_wind_generators/expanded_e_net/netenergy_metering/index.htm

http://www.sener.gob.mx/webSener/res/PE_y_DT/ee/

http://www.solarserver.de/lexikon/performance_ratio-e.html

http://www.uni-solar.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guadalajara%2C_Jalisco


Bibliography

188

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexiko , Accessed September 6, 2007

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaik , Accessed August 15, 2007

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weltenergieverbrauch , Accessed December 20, 2007

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexiko

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaik

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weltenergieverbrauch

Documents

Nichos Para Sistemas Fotovoltaicos